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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 454 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 200
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 454

                          [Report No. 105-564]

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
  285) expressing the sense of the Congress that the President of the 
United States should reconsider his decision to be formally received in 
 Tiananmen Square by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 1998

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
  285) expressing the sense of the Congress that the President of the 
United States should reconsider his decision to be formally received in 
 Tiananmen Square by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Con. Res. 285) 
expressing the sense of the Congress that the President of the United 
States should reconsider his decision to be formally received in 
Tiananmen Square by the Government of the People's Republic of China. 
The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final 
adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 
the resolution equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader or 
his designee and a Member opposed to the resolution; and (2) one motion 
to recommit.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 200

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 454

                          [Report No. 105-564]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
  285) expressing the sense of the Congress that the President of the 
United States should reconsider his decision to be formally received in 
 Tiananmen Square by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 3, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 350 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 350

Congratulating the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion of the fiftieth 
              anniversary of their nation's independence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1998

Mr. Bereuter (for himself, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Berman) submitted the 
     following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion of the fiftieth 
              anniversary of their nation's independence.

Whereas on February 4, 1948, the people of Sri Lanka gained their independence 
        from the British;
Whereas the people of Sri Lanka and the United States have a common interest in 
        the promotion and preservation of democratic systems of government;
Whereas the people of Sri Lanka and the United States have had many shared 
        values and interests, including the desire to promote the peaceful 
        development of the South Asian region;
Whereas Sri Lankan citizens who have visited or lived in the United States, and 
        United States citizens who have visited or lived in Sri Lanka, have done 
        much to improve mutual understanding and build friendship over the past 
        fifty years;
Whereas United States citizens of Sri Lankan 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 between the United States and Sri Lanka 
        have grown over fifty years to the benefit of the people of both 
        countries; and
Whereas the fiftieth anniversary of the independence of Sri Lanka offers an 
        opportunity for Sri Lanka and the United States to renew their 
        commitment to international cooperation on issues of mutual interest and 
        concern: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion 
        of the fiftieth anniversary of their nation's independence; and
            (2) looks forward to broadening and deepening United States 
        cooperation and friendship with Sri Lanka in the years ahead 
        for the benefit of the people of both countries.
                                 <all>
```
#### N. B. Wilson *v.*John B. Davies.

Principal and Surety — Indulgence—Release of Surety.

If the creditor and principal debtor make a contract, founded on a valuable consideration and such a one as can be enforced, for indulgence without the assent of the surety it will operate as a release of the surety.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

November 1, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Although the note was executed to Wilson, as payee, it is conceded that Whitman was the beneficiary and real creditor.

The doctrine is well established that if the creditor and principal debtor make a contract founded on a valuable consideration, and such a one as can be enforced for indulgence without the assent of the surety, it will operate as a release of the surety. *Kenningham, etc., v. Bedford, etc.,*1 B. M. 325; *Duncan v. Reed, etc.,*8 B. M. 382.

*726
      *R. H. Field, for appellant.*

In this case Shirley proves that after the note matured he made a contract with Whitman to continue to employ him in his hotel at a salary of $1,000 per annum in consideration that he would give indulgence on the note, and such employment was continued several months after the note matured and in fulfillment of said agreement, Whitman caused Wilson to desist from collecting the note; that fully one-third of the one thousand dollars was paid for the indulgence, as his services were not worth more than two-thirds of that amount and that Davies, who was his surety on the note, was ignorant of the arrangement, and of course never assented to it. As to the exceptions to some of the answers of Shirley to interrogatories propounded by appellee, we need only say that in answer to the 6th interrogatory he states in direct terms that Whitman agreed in consideration of his retaining him in his, Shirley’s, employ at a salary of $1,000 per annum, he would defer the -collection of the note, and in consideration of that agreement he caused Wilson, who had possession of the note, to desist-from applying for its payment for several months. And the answer to the next question where he uses the terms “it was understood,” etc., is evidently the witness’s mode of expressing the time the contract was to continue, having in the previous answer stated the contract, and the court below committed no error in overruling appellant’s exceptions.

Wherefore, perceiving no error in the judgment, the same is affirmed.
Novembe r 30

, 2015

J eff r e y D . K y l e , C lerk
Th ird D i s t ri c t o f Te x as
P

. O

. B o x 125 4 7
A u s t i n , Te x as 78 7 11

- 25 4 7
512

- 46 3

- 1 7 33

R E: CO A N o

. 0 3

- 1 5

- 0 0 0 66

T rial C o u rt C a u se N o

. D

- 1

- D C

- 13

- 300 3 38
S h a w n H a r t y v. S t a t e o f Te x as

D ear M r. K y le,

Ms. Harty ’s first appellate attorney withdrew and she has been appointed a new appellate
attorney , but I have no t been contacted by the new attorney and a request for the record has
not been made from him. I am look ing for guidance as to if you would like me to prepare the

rec ord without notice from the attorney or if you would like me to wait until a request for the
record has been made.

Than k yo u fo r you r time

, attentio n an d patienc e t o thi s matter

. I f yo u hav e an y questions, pleas e fee l free to call me at 512

- 854

- 9315 or by email at K imberly.lee@traviscountytx.gov.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Lee
Official Court Reporter

147 t h District Court
Travis County

, Texas
512

- 854

- 9315
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 390 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 25, 1998.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2589) to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, with 
respect to the duration of copyright, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Points of order against the 
amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 
6 of rule XXIII for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. The 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for 
electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic 
voting on the first of any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00171-CR

Wallace Wayne Bowman, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From the 97th District Court

of Montague County (2008-

0000144M-CR)

July 5, 2018

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kalvin MARSHALL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7331.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 22, 2004.

Kalvin Marshall, Appellant pro se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, 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.

Kalvin Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.*
      *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) *270(2000). 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*

We decline to consider the issues Marshall has raised for the first time in his informal brief that were not first presented to the district court. With regard to Marshall’s claim pursuant to the recent Supreme Court case of *Blakely v. Washington,*- U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), even if properly before this court for consideration, *Blakely*would offer Marshall no relief because, *inter alia,*the Supreme Court has not made its ruling in *Blakely*retroactive to cases on collateral review. *See In re Dean,*375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir.2004); *see also United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139, 151 *270(4th Cir.2001) (holding that the rule announced in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the precursor to *Blakely,*is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review).
Order entered November 21, 2013 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01348-CV 

IN RE SOUTHERN FOODS GROUP, LLC AND DEAN TRANSPORTATION, INC., 

Relators 

On Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-07015-C 

ORDER 

Pursuant to the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY real party’s November 15, 2013 

motion to reconsider and to vacate. On the Court’s own motion, we WITHDRAW our opinion 

and VACATE our order of October 31, 2013. 

We DISMISS as moot relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER that each 

party bear its own costs of the original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
H. Res. 390

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 25, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2589) to amend the provisions of title 17,

United States Code, with respect to the duration of copyright,

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall

be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the

Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No

amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
2

•HRES 390 EH

substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion of

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 6 of rule XXIII. Points of order against the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1

pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII for failure to comply with

clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during

further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce

to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on

any postponed question that follows another electronic vote

without intervening business, provided that the minimum

time for electronic voting on the first of any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration

of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of

the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
3

•HRES 390 EH

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### POWERS v. POWERS

No. 229P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 225

Motion by defendant for temporary stay denied 15 May 1996. Petition by defendant for writ of supersedeas denied 15 May 1997. Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 15 May 1997.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Steven Tanner, certifythat:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this  report on Form 10-K of Real MexRestaurants, Inc.;

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                                       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-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 thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: February21, 2006

 
| /s/ Steven Tanner       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Steven Tanner           |
|                    |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
## NO. 12

- 20

- 00045

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF E .N.B.,

A CHILD §
§
§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). Appellant, M.P., filed a notice of appeal from the final order in a suit affecting the parent child relationship. On February 13, 20 20 , the Clerk of this Court notified M.P. that the notice of appeal failed to contain the information specifically required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9 .5 (service); see also T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). The notice warned that, unless M.P. filed a proper notice of appeal on or before March 16 , the appeal
would be referred to the Court for dismissal. This deadline passed and M.P. has not filed a compliant notice of appeal or otherwise responded to this Court’s February 13 notice.
Because M.P. failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 9.5 and Section 51.017(a), the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dism issal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time). Opinion delivered March 31, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 31 , 2020

NO. 12

- 20

- 00045

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E .N.B., A CHILD

Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2 of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 15

- 0380

- F) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be, and the sa me is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance. By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.