alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 201

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 30, 1997.

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee

on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is

waived with respect to the following measures:

(1) Any resolution reported before August 3, 1997,

providing for consideration or disposition of the bill

(H.R. 2015) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to

subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, an

amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or an

amendment reported in disagreement from a conference

thereon.

(2) Any resolution reported after July 30, 1997,

and before August 3, 1997, providing for consideration

or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2014) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(2) and (d) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for

fiscal year 1998, an amendment thereto, a conference re-
2

•HRES 201 EH

port thereon, or an amendment reported in disagreement

from a conference thereon.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Jacqueline Stevens

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02725

Honorable Mary M.

Rowland

United States Department of Homeland Security,

et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 22, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Agreed motion to extend

time [55] is granted. Summary Judgment briefing schedule is amended as follows: ICE to

move for summary judgment by July 28, 2023; (2) plaintiff to file her consolidated

response to ICE's motion and memorandum in support of her own motion for summary

judgment by August 25, 2023; (3) ICE to file a consolidated reply in support of its motion

and response to plaintiff's motion by September 15, 2023; and (4) plaintiff to reply in

support of her motion by October 5, 2023. Mailed notice. (dm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 56 Filed: 06/22/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:329
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Robert Hennager,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03878-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8567 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 1
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 157

Congratulating the people of India and Pakistan on the occasion of the

50th anniversary of their nations’ independence.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 22, 1997

Mr. BEREUTER (for himself, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. GILMAN, Mr.

HAMILTON, Mr. BERMAN, and Mr. STEARNS) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the people of India and Pakistan on the

occasion of the 50th anniversary of their nations’ independence.

Whereas in August 1947 the people of Pakistan and India

gained their independence from the British;

Whereas the people of India, Pakistan, and the United States

have a common interest in the promotion and preservation of democratic systems of government;

Whereas since independence in 1947 the people of India have

maintained the world’s largest democracy, one that serves

as an inspiration for people throughout the world;
2

•HRES 157 IH

Whereas in recent years the people of Pakistan have reasserted their own strong commitment to building and

sustaining a democratic system of government;

Whereas, in addition to democracy, the people of Pakistan,

India, and the United States have had many shared values and interests over the past fifty years, including the

desire to promote the peaceful development of the South

Asian region;

Whereas Indian and Pakistani citizens, who have visited or

lived in the United States, and United States citizens,

who have visited or lived in India and Pakistan, have

done much to improve mutual understanding and build

friendship over the past fifty years;

Whereas United States citizens of Pakistani or Indian origin

have contributed greatly to the advancement of knowledge, the development of the United States economy, and

the enrichment of cultural life in the United States;

Whereas the ties of trade and investment among the United

States, India, and Pakistan have grown over fifty years

to the great benefit of the people of all three countries;

and

Whereas the fiftieth anniversary of the independence of Pakistan and India offers an opportunity for India, Pakistan,

and the United States to renew their commitment to

international cooperation on issues of mutual interest and

concern: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates the people of India and Paki3 stan on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of

4 their nations’ independence;
3

•HRES 157 IH

1 (2) looks forward to broadening and deepening

2 United States cooperation and friendship with Paki3 stan and India in the years ahead for the benefit of

4 the people of all three countries; and

5 (3) intends to send a delegation to India and

6 Pakistan during this 50th anniversary year of inde7 pendence to further enhance the mutual understand8 ing among the United States, Pakistan, and India

9 and among the United States Congress and the par10 liaments of those countries.

Æ
9975.

#### Cheek *v.*The State.

Decided November 1, 1918.

Accusation of assault and battery; from city court of Jefferson— Judge Mahaffey. March 12, 1918.

*E. C. Starlc,*for plaintiff in error.

*8. J. Nix, solicitor, P. Cooley,'*contra.

Broyles, P.- J.

1. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a special ground of a motion for a new trial must 'be complete within itself. It will not be considered when it is necessary to refer to other portions of the record to determine the question attempted to be raised by it. Under this ruling the 1st and 2d special grounds of the motion for a new trial can not be considered.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in- the 5tli ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, js not erroneous for any reason assigned therein.

3. There is no merit in the special ground of the motion for a new trial which asserts that “the jury did not want to find the defendant guilty, as the form of their verdict was, ‘We, the jury, -find the defendant guilty and recommend the mercy of the court,’ and this being a misdemeanor ease.”

4. The general exception to the entire charge of the court is too broad, since the whole charge was not erroneous.

5. The other special grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, will not be considered. .Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court the mere statement in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error that he relies upon all the grounds of his amended motion will not be considered as an argument, but such grounds will be treated as virtually abandoned.

6. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS DOCUMENT  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY REPORT 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001048447                       
<NAME>                          ATLANTA MARRIOTT MARQUIS II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-19-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         6191
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7434
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               31562
<PP&E>                                         239390
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (75385)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2190
<BONDS>                                        183499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     23503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209192
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19060
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7964
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5087
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                4174
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
#### Lige Williams *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 2-574A118.

Filed July 30, 1975.]

*184*Harriette Bailey Conn,*Public Defender of Indiana, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert F. Colker,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

Lige Williams, petitioner, is appealing the denial of his petition for post conviction relief claiming denial of counsel at a pre-trial lineup and the unconstitutionality of his indeterminate ten to twenty year sentence under the robbery statute.1

We affirm.

Petitioner was convicted of robbery on February 6, 1969, for which he received a sentence of ten to twenty-five years. While a motion for new trial was filed, no appeal was perfected. On November 25, 1970, a hearing was held on petitioner’s post-conviction petition at which time his ten to twenty-five year sentence was modified to read ten to twenty years. Although not raised in his original motion for new trial, petition for post-conviction relief, hearing on the petition, or belated motion to correct errors, petitioner now claims that his constitutional right to counsel was abridged when he was placed in a lineup prior to indictment without benefit of an attorney.

Pursuant to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Remedies, Rule 1, § 7, an appeal taken from denial of a PCR 1 petition proceeds under the rules applicable to civil actions. *Hendrixson*v. *State*(1974), Ind. App., 310 N.E.2d 569. See also: *Brown*v. *State*(1974), 261 Ind. 619, 308 N.E.2d 699. Inasmuch as petitioner has failed to preserve this issue in his original motion for a new trial or his belated motion to correct errors, the alleged constitutional violation is deemed waived. TR. 59(G); *Tillman*v. *State*(1975), 163 Ind. App. 563, 325 N.E.2d 509; *Day*v. *State*(1974), 162 Ind. App. 693, 320 N.E.2d 827, 828 N. 2; *Bennett*v. *State*(1973), 159 Ind. App. 59, 304 N.E.2d 827.

*185Petitioner next argues that a ten to twenty year indeterminate sentence is unconstitutional since a ten to twenty year determinate sentence for the greater offense of armed robbery2 may allow a defendant to be released at an earlier time.

As the Public Defender is surely aware, this contention has been made and rejected numerous times in the past. We now reject it once more. *Dotson*v. *State*(1972), 258 Ind. 581, 282 N.E.2d 812; *Evans*v. *State*(1974), 162 Ind. App. 588, 320 N.E.2d 781; *Jett*v. *State*(1974), 162 Ind. App. 82, 317 N.E.2d 882; *Davis*v. *State*(1973), 156 Ind. App. 534, 297 N.E.2d 450; *Barbee*v. *State*(1973), 156 Ind. App. 431, 296 N.E.2d 884.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is hereby affirmed.

Note. — Reported at 331 N.E.2d 460.

1

. IC 1971, 35-13-4-6, Ind. Ann. Stat. §10-4101 (Burns 1956).

2

. IC 1971, 35-12-1-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-4709 (Burns Supp. 1974). Petitioner was convicted on February 6, 1969, prior to August 18, 1969, the effective date of the 1969 amendment. *Puckett*v. *State*(1975), 163 Ind. App. 631, 325 N.E.2d 505.
{"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 Television to Air Launch of Next International Space Station Crew","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hwSOeR571k\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-launch-of-next-international-space-station-crew-2\/\">NASA Television to Air Launch of Next International Space Station Crew<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-launch-of-next-international-space-station-crew-2\/embed\/#?secret=hwSOeR571k\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Television to Air Launch of Next International Space Station Crew” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hwSOeR571k\" 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\/08\/exp-45-crew.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
----

|                                                                            |   | Three Months Ended September 30, |      |   | Nine Months Ended September 30, |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|-----------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                            |   | 2009                             |      |   | 2008                            |   |   | 2009 |   |   | 2008 |   |
| Diluted net loss per share from continuing operations:                          |   |                             |      |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net  loss from continuing operations available to common shareholders |   | $                                | (672,000  | )      |                            | $      | (4,364,000 | ) |   | $ | (4,716,000 | ) |   | $ | (12,656,000 | ) |
|                                                                            |   |                             |      |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                   |   |                             | 7,954,928 |   |                            |   | 7,954,928 |   |   |   | 7,954,928 |   |   |   | 7,954,928 |   |
| Net effect of dilutive stock options based on treasury stock method             |   |                             | -         |   |                            |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |
| Total average shares                                                            |   |                             | 7,954,928 |   |                            |   | 7,954,928 |   |   |   | 7,954,928 |   |   |   | 7,954,928 |   |
|                                                                            |   |                             |      |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fully diluted loss per share from continuing operations                         |   | $                                | (0.08     | )      |                            | $      | (0.55 | ) |   | $ | (0.59 | ) |   | $ | (1.59 | ) |

----
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, COLOR KINETICS INCORPORATEDI, David K. Johnson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Color KineticsIncorporated;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;b) [omitted]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   December 30, 2005 /s/ David K. Johnson   Date David K. Johnson  Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7708

VINCENT BARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES; CURTIS KEELS, Agent of SCDPPPS; STEVEN BENJAMIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-3175-2-22) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Vincent Barr appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and denying reconsideration of that order. 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. Barr v. South Carolina Dep’t of Probation, Parole & Pardon Servs. , No. CA-01- 3175-2-22 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 12, 2001, entered Sept. 14, 2001; and filed Feb. 7, 2002, entered Feb. 11, 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