alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 3855

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 607 Pershing

Drive in Laclede, Missouri, as the ‘‘General John J. Pershing Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

607 Pershing Drive in Laclede, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘General John J. Pershing Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘General

John J. Pershing Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 550 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 24, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4112) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1999, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Order entered April 23, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01455-CV

VENATOR MATERIALS PLC, SIMON TURNER, KURT D. OGDEN, 

STEPHEN IBBOTSON, RUSS R. STOLLE, HUNTSMAN CORPORATION, 

HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC, HUNTSMAN (HOLDINGS) 

NETHERLANDS B.V., Appellants

V.

MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND 

FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02030

ORDER

At appellants’ request, we abated this appeal pending the issuance of the 

mandate in a related appeal. Because the mandate in that appeal has issued, we 

REINSTATE this appeal.

Before the Court are (1) appellants Venator Materials PLC, Simon Turner, 

Kurt D. Ogden, Stephen Ibbotson, and Russ R. Stolle’s (collectively, Venator 
appellants) April 14, 2020 unopposed motion to dismiss their appeal, (2) appellants

Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman International LLC, and Huntsman (Holdings) 

Netherlands B.V.’s (collectively, Huntsman appellants) April 14, 2020 opposed 

motion to transfer their appeal, and (3) appellees’ April 22, 2020 response to the 

Huntsman appellants’ motion. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.1, we GRANT the dismissal motion and dismiss the Venator appellants’ 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. 

Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 

135, 137 n.2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), the Court is referring the Huntsman 

appellants’ motion and appellees’ response to the Texas Supreme Court. The 

Court does not object to the transfer. 

We ABATE the appeal pending disposition of the motion to transfer. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
From: Cartas Rogatorias

To: Platt, Joseph

Cc: Amaro Jaramillo, José Luis; Rodríguez Velázquez, Brenda Guadalupe

Subject: [EXTERNAL] ASJ- 31579 - EXHORTOS O CARTAS ROGATORIAS - COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Date: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:49:23 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CFTC. DO NOT click links or open

attachments unless you recognize and/or trust the sender. If you believe this is SPAM simply

block sender and delete the email. If you suspect this to be a phishing attempt, please use the

“Report Phishing” button on your Outlook menu bar.

Jospeh C. Platt

Trial Attorney

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Expediente SRE.02C.05/541/1/2020-2020/00522/ASJ

Applicant: United States District Court, Northern District of Illionois

Case No.: 1:20-CV-03758

Petitioner: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

I inform that the petition of service to: TIMOTHY MARTIN EVANS has been sent to the

“Tribunal Superior de Justicia del Estado de Quintana Roo".

S i n c e r e l y

Brenda Guadalupe Rodríguez Velázquez

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 89-5 Filed: 11/22/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2524
(DG. 04151)

*Give information to applicant authority.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 89-5 Filed: 11/22/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2525
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7228

JERRY SAUNDERS, a/k/a Jerry Sanders,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS; SUPERINTENDENT, FEDERAL

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MIAMI,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-93-34; CA-04-275-3)

Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Saunders, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition characterized

as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 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 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Saunders has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. Furthermore, we deny Saunders’ motion for default judgment

filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)(b)(2). 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 10.55
   /s/ Francis M. Colalucci
    
    
    
    9/18/2007Tower Insurance Company of New York
    
    
    
    Date/s/ Francis M. Colalucci
    
    
    
    9/18/2007Tower National Insurance Company
    
    
    
    Date/s/ Michael C. Haines
    
    
    
    9/18/2007Preserver Insurance Company
    
    
    
    Date/s/ Michael C. Haines
    
    
    
    9/18/2007North East Insurance Company
    
    
    
    Date/s/ Michael C. Haines
    
    
    
    9/18/2007Mountain Valley Indemnity Company
    
    
    
    Date/s/ Joseph P. Beitz
    
    
    
    9/9/2007CastlePoint Reinsurance Company
    
    
    
    Date/s/ Roger A. Brown
    
    
    
    9/19/2007CastlePoint Insurance Company
    
    
    
    Date
 1




---



##### 



(Hereinafter referred to as the Original Agreement)
  (Hereinafter referred to as the Company)
  (Hereinafter referred to as the Reinsurer)
    (Hereinafter referred to as the Original Agreement)
  
  
  2




---



##### 



(Hereinafter referred to as the Original Agreement)
  
  (Hereinafter referred to as the Subscribing Reinsurer)
     3




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 
  TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
 By:Name:Title:
 TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
  PRESERVER INSURANCE COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
 MOUNTAIN VALLEY INDEMNITY COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
 NORTH EAST INSURANCE COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
 
  CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
 4




---



##### 



(Hereinafter referred to as the Original Agreement)
  
  (Hereinafter referred to as the Subscribing Reinsurer)
     5




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 
  TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
 By:Name:Title:
 TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
  PRESERVER INSURANCE COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
 MOUNTAIN VALLEY INDEMNITY COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
 NORTH EAST INSURANCE COMPANY
 By:Name:Title:
 
  CASTLEPOINT REINSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
 By:Name:Title:
 6
IV

House Calendar No. 255

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 550

[Report No. 105–741]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4112) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1998

Mr. MCINNIS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4112) making appropriations

for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 4112) making appropriations for

4 the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending Septem5 ber 30, 1999, and for other purposes. All points of order

6 against the conference report and against its consideration
2

HRES 550 RH

1 are waived. The conference report shall be considered as

2 read.

House Calendar No. 255

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 550

[Report No. 105–741]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference reother purposes. fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the port to accompany the bill (H.R. 4112) making

SEPTEMBER 23, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marvin Clarence PRESLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-10512.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Dec. 30, 2004.

Floyd Clardy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for United States of America.

Ira Raymond Kirkendoll, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marvin Clarence Presley appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues for the first time on appeal pursuant to *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *United States v. Williams,*343 F.3d 423 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*540 U.S. 1093, 124 S.Ct. 966, 157 L.Ed.2d 800 (2003), that his sentence should not have exceeded one year of imprisonment because his underlying conspiracy conviction was only a Class E felony-

Neither *Blakely*nor *Williams,*however, plainly supports the determination urged by Presley either that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) creates an additional aggravated offense for every offense in the United States Code or that the statutory maximum for purposes of felony classification under 18 U.S.C. § 3559 is the top end of an offender’s guideline range, as opposed to the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the statute. Consequently, Presley has not demonstrated plain error on the part of the district court. *See United States v. Vasquez,*216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth, in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NIST: Promoting U.S. Innovation

and Industrial Competitiveness

Belinda L. Collins, Ph.D.

Director, Technology Services

Nanotechnology Partnership Forum

September 13, 2010
NIST Today: Mission

To promote U.S. 

innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by 

advancing

measurement science,

standards, and

technology

in ways that enhance 

economic security and 

improve our quality of life

©Robert Rathe

2
NIST Center for Neutron Research

NIST At A Glance

Major Assets

 ~ 2,900 employees

 ~ 4,000 associates and facilities users

 ~ 1,600 field staff in partner organizations

 ~ 400 NIST staff serving on 1,000 

national and international standards 

committees 

Major Programs

 NIST Laboratories

 NIST User Facilities

 Baldrige National Quality Program

 Manufacturing Extension Partnership

 Technology Innovation Program 3

Center for Nanoscale 

Science & Technology

©Robert Rathe

Advanced Measurement 

Laboratory 

Courtesy HDR Architecture, Inc./Steve Hall ©Hedrich Blessing 

Advanced Chemical 

Sciences Laboratory
The World is Changing... 

We face significant challenges to our 

global competitiveness.

Leaders in government, industry and 

academia recognize these challenges.

NIST supplies key infrastructure 

enabling innovation to enhance our 

competitiveness.
World Class Staff and Facilities

Broad range of technical 

expertise in measurement 

science, standards and 

technology • Bioscience & Health • Building and Fire Research • Chemistry | Math | Physics •Electronics & Telecommunications •Energy Environment/Climate •Information Technology •Manufacturing •Materials Science •Nanotechnology •Public Safety & Security •Quality •Transportation 

©Robert Rathe
Welcome!

Special Thanks to

 The Federal Laboratory Consortium, Mid-Atlantic Region

 Maryland Technology Development Corporation 

 The Montgomery County Department of Economic 

Development

Optional Tours

 The NIST Center for Nanoscale Science & Technology

 Several Nanotechnology NIST laboratories

We look forward to collaborating with you!
H. Res. 261

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 8, 1997.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2158) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1998, and for other purposes. All points of order against

the conference report and against its consideration are

waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Application Request for Use of Combined ILAC Mark REV. 2016-07-01

Application Request for the

Use of the Accredited Laboratory Combined ILAC MRA Mark

Lab Code: 

Laboratory Name:

Location Address:

As the laboratory’s Authorized Representative, we agree to comply with the requirements 

outlined in NIST Handbook 150, Annex E, Use of the Accredited Laboratory Combined ILAC MRA 

Mark, regarding the use of the ILAC MRA mark in combination with the NVLAP symbol for 

reference of the accredited activities covered by the scope of our accreditation. We understand 

that our laboratory can only use the combined mark once written formal approval has been 

issued by NVLAP. 

Attached, we have included copies of our policy and procedure for controlling use of the 

combined mark for review. 

Signature_______________________________________ Date______________________

Printed Name___________________________________

Please note the official artwork for the combined mark will be provided to your laboratory upon receipt and processing of this 

application request. Example use of the combined mark will be required prior to issuance of any written approval regarding use 

of the combined mark.

Return Address:

Please return this completed form and supporting documentation by one of the following:

Mail: NVLAP

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2140 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140

Fax: 301-926-2884

Email: nvlap@nist.gov

For NVLAP use only:

Reviewed By/Date: Artwork Sent Date:

Lab Example Provided: Approval Letter Issued:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Richard J. Naughton, Chief Executive Officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the periods covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditorsand the audit committee of issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: December 14, 2006 /s/ Richard J. Naughton   Name:  Richard J. Naughton   Title:  Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit****31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

** **

**SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

March 29, 2019

 

I, John E. Peak, certify that:

 

1.          Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by thisreport on Form 10-K of Wells Fargo Dealer Floorplan Master Note Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.          Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.          Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements inall material respects; and

 

5.          Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordancewith Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

 

 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably reliedon information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and BNY Mellon Trustof Delaware.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LA SHAUNA M. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY; FRANCISCA CAMPBELL, Administrative Services Manager III; AMERICA RODRIGUEZ, Administrative Services Manager II; ALEX MEDINA, Administrative Services Manager I; ALMA YOUNG, Administrative Services Manager I; LUISA BARRETO, Management

Ana lyst; CRISTINA ROSALES, Administrative Services Manager I; KIMBERLY GREEN, Administrative Services Manager I; PAMELA FONTENOT, Administrative Services Manager II; YVETTE MENDOZA, Intermediate Clerk; ROSA MURO, Administrative Services Manager I,

De fendants

- Appellees. No. 23

- 55512

D.C. No. 8:21

- cv

- 00981

- DOC

- JDE

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

FEB 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 55512 Submitted February 21, 2024 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

La Shauna M. Griffin appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting

leave to amend her second amended complaint in her federal employment law

action

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order granting Griffin

leave to amend her second amended complaint because the order is not final or

appealable

. See WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller , 104 F.3d 1133, 1135

- 37 (9th Cir.

1997) (en banc) (dismissal of complaint with leave to amend is not appealable ); cf.

Serine v. Peterson , 989 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1993) (order) (“Rule 4(a)(2)

permits a notice of appeal from a nonfinal decision to operate as a notice of appeal

from the final judgment only when a district court announces a decision that would

be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment.” (citation

omitted) ).

All pending motions are denied as moot

.

DISMISSED

.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).