alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 413

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 30, 1998.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1502)

entitled the ‘‘District of Columbia Student Opportunity

Scholarship Act of 1997’’. The bill shall be considered as

read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill equally

divided and controlled by the Majority Leader or his designee

and a Member opposed to the bill; and (2) one motion to

commit.

Attest:

Clerk.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                    Exhibit 27.1


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of RB Asset, Inc. for the three months ended September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              Jul-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                           37,512
<SECURITIES>                                      1,260
<RECEIVABLES>                                    81,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                     19,140
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 42,422
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  191,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       1,400
<COMMON>                                          7,100
<OTHER-SE>                                       99,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    191,744
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6,125
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     619
<INCOME-TAX>                                        169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 450
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        450
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.06
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.7(d)

            FORM OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Amendment No. 3 to Executive Employment Agreement (this "Amendment")
is made as of November 1, 2003 (the "Amendment Date"), by and between BMC
Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Employer"), and ______________, an
individual resident of ______________ (the "Executive"). The Employer and the
Executive are each a "party" and are together "parties" to this Amendment.

      WHEREAS, the parties have previously entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of ___________ (the "Agreement"), and the parties wish to amend the
Agreement to provide for an automatically renewing "Employment Period," as
defined in the Agreement, on the terms described herein.

      NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the extension of the Employment Period
provided for hereunder and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be
legally bound, agree as follows, effective as of the Amendment Date:

      1.    Section 2.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted and the following
shall be substituted therefor:

            "2.2  EMPLOYMENT PERIOD

            Subject to the provisions of Section 6, the term of the Executive's
      employment under this Agreement will commence upon the Amendment Date and
      shall continue in effect through the third anniversary of the Amendment
      Date (the "Employment Period"); provided, however, that, subject to the
      provisions of Section 6, commencing on November 2, 2003 and on each day
      thereafter, the Employment Period shall be automatically extended for one
      additional day unless the Employer shall give written notice to Executive
      that the Employment Period shall cease to be so extended, in which event
      the Employment Period shall terminate on the third anniversary of the date
      such notice is given. The Employment Period may be further extended by
      mutual agreement of the parties."


           [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
<PAGE>
      2.    Except as amended hereby, the Agreement is specifically ratified and
reaffirmed.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment
as of the date first written above.

                                             EMPLOYER:

                                             BMC Software, Inc.


                                             By: _______________________________

                                             Name:  Jerome Adams
                                             Title: Senior Vice President of
                                                    Administration

                                             EXECUTIVE:


                                             ___________________________________
#### J. H. Hines v. W. A. Humphreys and Others.

Executors and Administrators — Time to Settle — Interest.

An administrator lias two-years in which, to settle his accounts and during that period he has a right to retain the assets to pay debts and liabilities against the estate and is not liable to pay interest unless he has put the money at interest or has made profit on it.

APPEAL FROM McCRACKEN' CIRCUIT COURT.

February 29, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

It is not directly charged in the petition that the intestate at her death owed no debts — nor is it alleged that there were not debts outstanding against the estate when letters of administration were granted on her estate to appellant.

*46
      *I. B. Husbands, R. K. Williamts, for appellant.*

*Marshall & Bloomfield, for appellees.*

By *Sec.*24, *Art.*2, of the *R. S.,*1 *Vol., p.*506, appellant had two years within which to settle his accounts, and during that period he had a right 'to retain the assets of his intestate to pay debts and meet liabilities that might have been outstanding against the estate he represents, and is not for that period liable to pay interest on the assets, unless he has put the money out at interest or has made profit on it.

And he is entitled to a commission for receiving and paying out the funds, or for his services as administrator; the sum allowed therefor is usually five per cent, on the amount collected and paid out — to be proportioned, however, by the amount of service rendered.

The judgment in this case was rendered for the whole amount alleged to have come to the hands of the administrator, with interest from the very day it is alleged he received it — giving him no time to select safe and solvent persons to loan it to and when the minor heirs had no statutory guardians — and making to him no allowance for his services. Such a judgment is not authorized — and this one must be reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to permit appellant to file an answer if he shall offer to do so and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LAMONT HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-03-614)

Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: January 11, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melissa J. Kimbrough, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.

Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, A. Lance Crick,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Although in his opening brief Henderson argued that his

sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), he now concedes in a supplemental

brief that his sentence does not violate his Sixth Amendment rights

under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 320 (2005). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Henderson was convicted by a jury of being a felon

in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),

924(a)(2) (2000). He was sentenced to 118 months of imprisonment.

On appeal, he maintains that he did not knowingly and intelligently

waive his right to counsel.* We affirm.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees not only the right to be

represented by counsel but the right to self-representation.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975). The decision to

represent oneself must be knowing and intelligent. Id. at 835.

Courts must entertain every reasonable presumption against waiver

of counsel. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404 (1977). The

record must show that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and

intelligent. United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 110 (4th Cir.

1988). Determination of a waiver of the right to counsel is a

question of law to be reviewed de novo. United States v.

Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1097 n.3 (4th Cir. 1997). We have

reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and conclude that

the district court adequately informed Henderson of the dangers of

self-representation and sufficiently ensured that his waiver of

counsel was knowing and voluntary.
- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm Henderson’s conviction and

sentence. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 445 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 22, 1998.
    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 any resolution reported from 
that committee on the legislative day of May 22, 1998, providing for 
consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for 
Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for 
other purposes, an amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or an 
amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
f(

United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois

tr,tl.uD

A[ti 042023 

ur

United States, Plaintiff "*ffiffi,ffiffi*

v.

Larry Jones, Defendant

Docket Number 1 :20-cr-00309-1

The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall,

Judge Presiding

Notice of Appeal

Larry Jones hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit from the final judgment entered on July 26,2023, sentencing

him to 188 months of incarceration. (Docket No. 206, 207).

DATED: August 2,2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larrv Jones

RECEIPT #

AUG 0 4 2023

THOMAS G. BRUTON-_

CLERK-, u.s. otsrnlcT couRT
**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 theAnnual Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Tanner, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that :

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Steven Tanner       |                |
|-------------------------|---------------------|
| Steven Tanner           |                |
|                    |                |
| Chief Financial Officer |                |
|                    |                |
|                    | March 26, 2008 |
|                         |                     |  |

 

 

----
#### James SMITH, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7244.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 22, 2004.

James Smith, Jr., Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

James Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Real MexRestaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 26,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Frederick F. Wolfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Frederick F. Wolfe  |           |   |
|-------------------------|----------------|--------|
| Frederick F. Wolfe      |           |
|                    |           |
| Chief Executive Officer |           |
|                    |           |
|                    | March 23, 2005 |   |
|                         |                |        |  |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

THERESA A. MACKO,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS R. CALORE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 228 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
----

EXHIBIT 10.3

OPTION AGREEMENT FOR 20% INTEREST OF INNER MONGOLIA MINERALCLAIMS

 

**OPTIONAGREEMENT**

THIS AGREEMENT made as ofthis 21st day of November 2006

BETWEEN:

**Gloria Meyers; RichardFrigault; Nina Petersen;  MelissaMonaghan;  Norma Potashnyz;  John Evans;  Angelo Froudakis;  Jim Cooper; Keith Howell**

(hereinafter referred to as the "Optionors")

- and – 

**NewportGold Inc**.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Optionee")

WHEREAS:

A.  The Optionors have anoption to earn a 50% interest of certain mineral exploration rights or permitscovering the property more particularly described in Schedule "A"attached hereto and located in Inner Mongolia of the Peoples Republic of China;

B.    BaoTouNoront Mineral Development Co. Ltd. is the registered holder of the propertyand which company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Noront Resources Ltd. and isestablished in the Peoples Republic of China.

C.  The Optionee wishes toacquire an option  to earn a 20%interest of the 50% interest held by the Optionors by agreeing to undertake andsatisfy all of the Optionors obligations in their agreement with BaoTou NorontMineral Development Co. Ltd. (this original agreement is attached )  and delivering 2,200,000 shares ofNewport Gold Inc. in total to the Optionors (these shares will be subject to aminimum one year hold and subject to all other jurisdictional securityregulations and rules) in addition to a total 2.2% N.S.R. on all metalsproduced from the Optionors interest in the property.  Each individual is independent from theother.  Each individual wouldreceive 200,000 shares of Newport Gold Inc. and a 0.2% N.S.R. of the metalsproduced from the optionors interest in the property, except for Gloria Meyersand Melissa Monaghan who will receive 400,000 shares each and a 0.4% N.S.R. TheOptionors also grant the Optionee a first right of refusal on acquiring theremainder of their 50% interest for a period of one year.

In summary  the optioneemust deliver to Noront Resources Ltd.a total of 800,000 shares of common stockof Newport Gold Inc, by Feb1,2009 and incur $750,000.00 U.S. ofexploration expenditures.  The firstyear obligation is 300,000 shares and an exploration expenditure of $250,000.

1

----

It should be noted that Martin Baerschmidt has sold his interest toKeith Howell, Frank Hunnisett has sold his interest to Gloria Meyers and  Andrew Skrepnek has sold his interest toMelissa Monaghan. 

In witness whereof the parties have caused this Agreement to beexecuted by their proper officers duly authorized in that behalf and all of theOptionors.

/s/ Derek Bartlett

Derek Bartlett 

2

----

Schedule "A"

Schedule "A" to The Agreement dated February 1st,2006 between Noront Resources Ltd and the Optionee

THE PROPERTY

Exploration Permit No. 0100000520137 Located at geographic positionk49E016009

Comprised of 5.16 km(2).

3

----
**Exhibit      12.1**

**Statement      Setting Forth Detail for Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed      Charges**

**(dollars      in thousands)**

|                                                  |   | **Year                Ended December 31,** |    |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|---------|
|                                                  |   | **2001**                                   |    | **2002** |   | **2003** |   | **2004** |   | **2005** |   |
| Interest                Expense                       |   | $                                          | 8,065   |   | $ | 4,585 |   | $ | 3,384 |   | $ | 3,679 |   | $ | 16,355 |   |
| Income                before income taxes             |   |                                       | 1,752   |   |   | 11,017 |   |   | 11,600 |   |   | 10,074 |   |   | 3,246 |   |
| **Ratio                of earnings to fixed charges** |   |                                       | **1.2** |   |   | **3.4** |   |   | **4.4** |   |   | **3.7** |   |   | **1.2** |   |

----
Case 2:16-cr-00057-DLR Document 4 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00057-DLR Document 4 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00057-DLR Document 4 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 3
#### James S. Smith *v.*Commonwealth.

Indictment and Information — More than One Offense Charged — Demurrer.

Where more than one offense is charged in an indictment, except as provided for in Sec. 126, C. C., a demurrer is proper.

APPEAL FROM KENTO’N' CIRCUIT COURT.

January 11, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge PeteRs:

The defendants in the court below demurred to the indictment and their demurrer was overruled — and the propriety of that ruling presents the first question for adjudication.

By *Sub-sec. c of sec.*165, *Crim. Code,*it is provided that *261when more than one offense is charged in an indictment, except as provided for in section 126, a demurrer is proper. Two offenses are charged in this indictment, and are not any of those provided for, or allowed to be joined by the last named section of the *Criminal Code.*Consequently, the indictment is bad, and the demurrer should have been sustained. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer to the indictment and for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

*Fisks, Duncan, for appellant.*
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 South Texas Oil Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Pawelek, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my
knowledge:





(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 all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:      March
30, 2009





/s/Michael J.
      PawelekMichael
      J. PawelekChief
      Executive Officer