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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 65 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 65

   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Government 
        Reform and Oversight in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

 Mr. Burton submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Government 
        Reform and Oversight in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the 
``Committee''), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 
shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more than 
$16,220,572 for the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $7,902,573 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1997, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1998; and
            (2) not more than $8,317,999 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1998, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1999.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Oversight.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bart Fitzgerald McCLAIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jay CARTER, Lieutenant; Bruce C. Carpenter, Correctional Officer; Cody Blake Stewart, Correctional Officer; Officer Edwards; Officer Fox, Defendants—Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Avery-Mitchell Facility, Defendant.

No. 04-7220.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 21, 2004.

Bart Fitzgerald McClain, Appellant pro se. James Philip Allen, Roy Asberry Cooper, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

*888PER CURIAM.

Bart Fitzgerald McClain appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel and his motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, and dismissing McClain’s civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See McClain v. Carter,*No. CA-01-20-1-MU (W.D.N.C. July 15, 2004). 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.*
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 698

To designate the United States Post Office building located at Bennett

and Kansas Avenue in Springfield, Missouri, as the ‘‘John Griesemer

Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1997

Mr. BLUNT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in Springfield, Missouri,

as the ‘‘John Griesemer Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States Post Office building located at

5 Bennett and Kansas Avenue in Springfield, Missouri, shall

6 be known and designated as the ‘‘John Griesemer Post

7 Office Building’’.
2

•HR 698 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

4 States Post Office building referred to in section 1 shall

5 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John Griesemer Post

6 Office Building’’.

Æ
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-11036

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO DURAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-69-ALL-M

--------------------

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Duran appeals his conviction and sentence for

illegal reentry after a previous deportation. Duran argues that

the district reversibly erred under United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a

mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines.

There was no “Booker” error or Sixth Amendment violation

because the only enhancement to Duran’s sentence was for his

prior conviction. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756, 769. 
No. 04-11036

-2-

Nevertheless, the district court committed “Fanfan” error by

sentencing Duran pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme. See

United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The Government concedes that Duran preserved his Fanfan

claim. As such, this court reviews the claim for harmless error. 

See Walters, 418 F.3d at 464. There is no indication in the

record that the district court would have imposed the same

sentence had the guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory. 

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Duran next argues that his sentence is unconstitutional

under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it was

based on the facts of a prior conviction what were not alleged in

the indictment, admitted by Duran, or proved to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. Duran’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Duran properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light

of Almendarez-Torres, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review. Accordingly, Duran’s conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
H. Res. 386

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 17, 1998.

Resolved, That the Honorable Richard K. Armey, a

Representative from the State of Texas, be, and he is hereby,

elected Speaker pro tempore on this day.

SEC. 2. The Clerk of the House shall notify the President of the United States and the Senate of the election of

the Honorable Richard K. Armey as Speaker pro tempore

during the absence of the Speaker.

Attest:

Clerk.
<html>
<head>
<title>Comments on Draft VVSG by Clayton Lewis</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">August 15, 2007<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">From: Clayton 
  H. Lewis <Clayton.Lewis@Colorado.EDU><br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">To: TGDC/NIST<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Subject: VVSG 
  Draft (August 7,2007)<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">The people at 
  NIST and elsewhere who have developed the usability performance requirements 
  in the draft are to be commended for excellent work. Because of the demographic 
  inclusion in the testing, the new benchmarks represent a big step forward for 
  accessibility for voters with disabilities, as well as for usability for all 
  voters. As a usability researcher with more than 30 years experience in industry 
  and academe I am very impressed that the proposal, based on solid background 
  work detailed on the vote.nist site, presents methods that are simple, clear, 
  and sensible, as well as practical and effective. Bravo!<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Clayton Lewis<br>
  Professor of Computer Science<br>
  Scientist in Residence, Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities<br>
  University of Colorado<br>
  http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~clayton </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Return to the 
  NIST HAVA Page</font></p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse" bordercolor="#111111" width="760" id="AutoNumber3" bgcolor="#E9E9E9">
  <tr> 
    <td width="186" align="center" valign="top" background="images/spacer186fade.gif"> 
      <p align="center"><font size="-2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Page 
        created November 2007<br>
        Last updated: 
        <!-- #BeginDate format:Am1 -->November 29, 2007<!-- #EndDate -->
        <br>
        Web site point of contact</font> 
    </td>
    <td width="574" align="center"> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-2"><a href="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/privacy.htm">Privacy 
      policy / security notice / accessibility statement</a><br>
      Disclaimer 
      / FOIA<br>
      NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department</font></td>
  </tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended, and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Registrant.


                                      /s/ Richard J. O'Brien
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Richard J. O'Brien
                                      Chief Financial Officer of FelCor Lodging
                                      Trust Incorporated, as general partner of
                                      FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership
**Exhibit 10.9****Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.****Employment Agreement**     **This Employment Agreement**(the “**Agreement**”) is made and entered into effective as of January1, 2008 (“**Effective Date**”), by and between Mercantile Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation(“**Company**”), with its principal office located at Quincy, Illinois, and Michael P. McGrath, ofQuincy, Illinois (“**Employee**”).**RECITALS**     A. Company is a bank holding company.     B. Employee is currently employed by Company, pursuant to the terms of an employment agreementdated March 1, 2007 (the “**Prior Employment Agreement**”), in the position of Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Company.     C. Company desires to continue the employment of Employee in the position of Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Company on the terms, covenants andconditions set forth in this Agreement.     D. Employee desires to continue in the employ of Company in the position of Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Company on the terms, covenants andconditions set forth in this Agreement.     E. Company and Employee desire to enter into this Agreement as of the Effective Date and thisAgreement shall supersede all of the terms and conditions of all prior employment terms andconditions, whether or not in writing, including the Prior Employment Agreement and any such prioremployment agreement shall become null and void as of the Effective Date, and the partiesthereunder shall have no rights or interests therein.     **NOW, THEREFORE,**in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreementhereinafter contained, it is covenanted and agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:**ARTICLE I**
9495.

#### Southern Express Company *v.*Hughes.

Decided January 15, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Reid-December 15, 1917..

*Robert C. & Philip H. Alston,*for plaintiff in error.

Luke, J.

1.- Under the facts developed in this ease, the principles of law (1) that if both_ the plaintiff and the defendant were free from fault, the injury will be attributed to accident, and no recovery can be had, and (2) that it was incumbont upon the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care and diligence in using the streets, and (3) that if both parties were at .fault, the damages should be apportioned, were entirely germane, and the judge erred' in refusing to give in charge the requested instructions embodying these legal doctrines, which were couched in appropriate form and language, and were not covered by his charge to the jury. As to the principle of accident, see *Holliday*v. *Athens,*10 *Ga. App.*709 (74 S. E. 67) ; as to-the failure to exercise ordinary care, see Park’s Code, § 4426, and notes; and as to diminution of damages, see *Americus &c. R. Co.*v. *Luckie,*87 *Ga.*6, 7 (13 S. E. 105) *Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co.*v. *Ingram,*135 *Ga.*696 (70 S. E. 234) ; *Central Ry. Co.*v. *Madden,*135 *Ga.*205 (69 S. E. 165, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813, 21 Ann. Cas. 1017); *Rollestone v. Cassirer,*3 *Ga. App.*161 (59 S. E. 442). _

2. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial are without substantial merit, or the alleged errors are such as are not likely to recur on another trial.

*Judgment •reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
IV

House Calendar No. 199

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 453

[Report No. 105–563]

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of the United States restoring religious freedom.

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 joint resolution (H.J. Res.

78) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the

United States restoring religious freedom.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint reso3 lution (H.J. Res. 78) proposing an amendment to the Con4 stitution of the United States restoring religious freedom.

5 The joint resolution shall be considered as read for amend6 ment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute rec7 ommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed
2

HRES 453 RH

1 in the joint resolution shall be considered as adopted. The

2 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

3 joint resolution, as amended, and on any further amend4 ment thereto to final passage without intervening motion

5 except: (1) two hours of debate on the joint resolution,

6 as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chair7 man and ranking minority member of the Committee on

8 the Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed in the

9 report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this reso10 lution, which may be offered only by the Member des11 ignated in the report, shall be considered as read, and

12 shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided

13 and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)

14 one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

House Calendar No. 199

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 453

[Report No. 105–563]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution

gious freedom.Constitution of the United States restoring reli-(H.J. Res. 78) proposing an amendment to the

JUNE 3, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Exhibit 4.1

                            [maxxZone.com letterhead]

                                  June 1, 2004

Terence Byrne
Bartholomew International Investments Ltd., Inc.
216 Hidden Pines Dr.
Panama City Beach, Fl 32408

Dear Mr. Byrne:

         This letter  agreement  memorializes  our agreement as to amending that
certain  Consulting  Services  Agreement dated February 12, 2004, by and between
maxZone.com,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company"),  and  Bartholomew
International  Investments  Ltd.,  Inc.,  as  amended  on April  22,  2004  (the
"Agreement").  All  capitalized  terms  used  herein  shall  be  ascribed  those
definitions provided for in the Agreement.

         Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby  amended so that the Company shall
issue an  additional  sixty million  (60,000,000)  shares of common stock of the
Company to Consultant  for the  performance  of the  Consulting  Services to the
Company.

         If you agree with the foregoing, please sign below and return a copy of
this letter to me by facsimile today and the original by overnight delivery.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            Walter H. Roder II

Acknowledged and Agreed:

Bartholomew International Investments Ltd., Inc.

By:  _________________________________
     Name:  __________________________
     Title: __________________________

Dated:  ____________________
nist.gov/nice

updated August 2023

Cybersecurity Career and

Technical Education Programs

Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs have proven to be an eective approach to prepare 

secondary and postsecondary students to succeed in cybersecurity careers.

CTE provides students with the academic, technical, and employability skills through rigorous and 

applied coursework, work-based learning experiences, dual or concurrent enrollment, and industryrecognized certifications.























	
















	
		
	






		

			





			

 

 

 


 


 

		
	




­

 






 

 



	




 
	

­

 

 

 

 


 

























 ­



 

   




	
	®

	









 






 

  

	

	

 



 

­
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it
No. 03-1841 BERNABÉ TEJADA-BATISTA, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v. LYDIA MORALES, Individually and in her respective official capacity; DOMINGO ÁLVAREZ, Individually and in his respective official capacity, Defendants, Appellants.

__________ JOSÉ A. FUENTES-AGOSTINI, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of Justice of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; ERNESTO FERNÁNDEZ, Individually and in his respective official capacity; ANTONIO FRANCO, Individually and in his respective official capacity; CRISTÓBAL IRIZARRY, Individually and in his respective official capacity; JOHN DOE, 97CV1430, Individually and in his respective official capacity; and MIGUEL GIERBOLINI, Defendants.

ERRATA The opinion of this court issued on September 20, 2005, should be amended as follows: On page 6, second full paragraph, line 3, replace "Morales's" with "Morales'". On page 11, line 4, replace "Fuentes's" with "Fuentes'". On page 14, line 4, replace "Fuentes's" with "Fuentes'". On page 14, paragraph 2, line 3, replace "was" with "were".
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Mish International Monetary Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04577

Honorable Manish S. Shah

Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 8, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion to reassign

[319] is granted, and case number 24−2628 will be submitted for reassignment. No

appearance on 4/11/24 is necessary. Upon reassignment, the court will enter the parties'

proposed briefing schedule on the motion to compel in 24−2628, with Glencore's response

due 4/26/24 and Vega/Spires' reply due 5/10/24. Notices Mailed. (psm, )

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.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 20

- 00722

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2018

- 05250J

Style: In the Interest of A.F. a/k/a A.N.F., A Child

Date motion filed * : September 13, 2021

Type of motion: Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief

Party filing motion: App ellant

Document to be filed: First Amended Appellant ’ s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 14, 2021

Number of previous extensions granted: 1

Date Requ ested: September 21, 2021

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________

Judge's si gnature: /s / Peter Kelly

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: September 16, 2021