alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 477

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 19, 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. 4059) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure

for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 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 Appropriations. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill

for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are

waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering
2

•HRES 477 EH

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 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 in 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. 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.

SEC. 2. Pending the adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999, the following allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be considered as made

to the Committee on Appropriations:

(1) New discretionary budget authority:

$531,961,000,000.
3

•HRES 477 EH

(2) Discretionary outlays: $562,277,000,000.

(3) New mandatory budget authority:

$298,105,000,000.

(4) Mandatory outlays: $290,858,000,000.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 24.1




POWER
OF ATTORNEY




KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE
PRESENTS, that each person whose name appears below constitutes and
appoints Brian S. Moore and Fred L. Hite and each of them, his or her true and
lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ending January 2, 2010, of Symmetry Medical Inc. and any or all
amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their
or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.





This
power of attorney has been signed as of the 5th day of March, 2010, by
the following persons:








/s/
       FRANCIS T. NUSSPICKEL
            
            /s/ 
      CRAIG B. REYNOLDSFrancis
      T. Nusspickel,
              Director
            
            Craig
      B. Reynolds,
              Director/s/
       JOHN S. KRELLE
            
            /s/
       JAMES S. BURNSJohn
      S. Krelle,
              Director
            
            James
      S. Burns,
              Director/s/ 
      THOMAS E. CHORMAN
            
            /s/ 
      ROBERT G. DEUSTERThomas
      E. Chorman,
              Director
            
            Robert
      G. Deuster,
              Director
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HOLIFIELD, COGLEY , and STEWART Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Suzette A. PRADO Aviation Traffic Controller First Class (E

- 6 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 202100303

_________________________ Decided: 31 Ma y 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge: Ryan J. Stormer
Sentence adjudged 18 August 2021 by a special court

- martial convened at Naval Base San Diego, California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 11 months , 1 and a bad

- conduct discharge.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Daniel O. Moore , JAGC, USN

1 Appellant was credited with 235 days of pretrial confinement credit.United States v. Prado , NMCCA No. 202100303 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have dete rmined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 2 The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE

ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, David Zwick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Neutral Tandem, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Dated: April 26, 2013



|    |  |                                                                                                              
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | / S / DAVID
ZWICK                                                                                            
|    |  | David Zwick Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
1 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:7135
2 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:7136
3 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:7137
4 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:7138
5 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:7139
6 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:7140
7 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7141
8 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:7142
9 of 9

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 309-1 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:7143
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

July 18, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

04-20096

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID JOSE HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(4:02-CR-342-1)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Jose Hernandez appeals his sentence, following his jurytrial conviction, for importation of heroin into the United States.

See 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a), 960(b)(3). The sentence was

imposed prior to United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005)

(finding sentencing guidelines only advisory).

He contends first that the district court erred in denying him

a two-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of

responsibility. S ee U.S.S .G. § 3E1.1. There is no merit in2

Hernandez’s contention that the pre- Booker denial of the reduction

penalized him for exercising his right to refrain f rom

incriminating himself on a conspiracy charge pending against him in

New York. Section 3E1.1 provides a method to grant leniency to

contrite defendants; denial of that leniency is not a penalty for

a defendant who has not accepted responsibility for his crime.

Hernandez did not accept responsibility for his crime prior to

trial. The denial of the reduction was not error. S ee United

S tates v. Angeles-Mendoza

, 407 F.3d 742, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2005)

(district court’s determination under § 3E1.1 is reviewed with even

more deference than is due under clearly erroneous standard).

For the first time on appeal, Hernandez contends the district

court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory guideline

scheme, in violation of Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 756-57. Because he

did not raise this issue in district court, this claim is reviewed

only for plain error. S ee United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo

, 407

F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th Cir. 2005). Hernandez makes no showing, as

required by Valenzuela-Quevedo

, that the dis t rict court would

likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing

s cheme. Similarly, there is no indication from the district

court’s remarks at sent encing that it would have reached a

different conclusion. Thus, Hernandez has not met his burden of

persuasion to show that the district court’s imposition of a

sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was rever sible plain3

error. S ee id. ; see also United States v. Olano

, 507 U.S. 725,

732-35 (1993).

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY CAMPBELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CR-05-13) Submitted: May 26, 2006 Decided: July 12, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joan A. Mooney, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ricky Campbell pled guilty to manufacturing, by growing and cultivating approximately 205 marijuana plants, a Schedule I controlled substance (Count 2) and was sentenced to sixty months of imprisonment. Counsel raises two issues on appeal and Campbell raises one issue pro se. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Counsel first argues under the Sentencing Guidelines that the district court improperly enhanced Campbell’s sentence because he possessed firearms, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2004), and for obstruction of justice, under USSG § 3C1.1. We find no reversible error and note that Campbell’s sentence was not increased for possession of firearms. United States v. Daughtrey , 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating review standard). Neither do we find that the district court improperly declined to apply the safety valve provision in USSG § 5C1.2. We grant Campbell’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief wherein he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a safety valve reduction. Contrary to Campbell’s assertions, however, the record is clear that his trial counsel did seek a safety valve reduction for him at sentencing, which the district court rejected. Thus, Campbell has failed to meet the demanding burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel- 3 - in his direct appeal. United States v. Richardson , 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138817 & (22) 

_________________________________________ 

In re PRISCILLA M. WARD REVOCABLE 

TRUST. 

_________________________________________ 

SUSAN R. WARD–TENBROEKE, Trustee, 

Appellant, 

v SC: 138817 

 COA: 289622 

Kent Probate Court: 

08-185530-TV 

MACKENZIE’S ANIMAL SANCTUARY, INC. 

and DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS USA, INC., 

Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

t1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147793

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147793

COA: 306987

Wayne CC: 04

- 017409

- FC

EMANUEL WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 6, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    In connection with the Annual Report of Buffets Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kerry
A. Kramp, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; and

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

                                                   /s/ Kerry A. Kramp
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   Kerry A. Kramp
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

September 28, 2004

    This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
9727.

#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Rice.

Decided February 11, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Elberton—Judge West presiding. March 30, 1918.

*A. G & Julian McCurry, George C. Grogan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Worley & Nall, Horace & Frank Holden, Howard B. Payne,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant which contributed to the injuries suéd for. Moreover, it showed that the plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the injuries. It follows that the recovery for the plaintiff was unauthorized, and that the court erred in overruling the general grounds of the defendant’s motion for a new trial. ■

2. The foregoing ruling being controlling in the case, it is unnecessary to consider the exceptions pendente lite or the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., disqualified.*
To : Technical Guidelines Development Committee

VR systems is a vendor that has provided 1600 pollbooks in the Florida marketplace. The 

product is called EViD.

I would like to address the issue relating to epollbooks that was addressed in the meeting of 

TGDC May 21-22.

As discussed in the meeting, epollbooks are being used for the support of early voting. Data 

communications are vital to operation of epollbooks in the early voting environment. There is no 

physical restraint on the location a voter may go to, so preventing double voting requires the 

messsage that a voter has voted get to other centers before the voter can. Voting multiple times 

has been attempted. 

Our customers are also pressing us to control the printing of Ballots on Demand (BOD) to reduce 

errors in the provision of the correct ballot to a voter. It is not clear to me if the printing of 

a BOD constitutes "Ballot Activation". These comments assume that by connecting to the BOD 

systems, the epollbooks which are also using data communications will be included in the 

proposed language.

I really want to address the "single point of failure" issue for these kinds of devices. The EViD 

product has a local database on each EViD station which is transferred to the EViDs using thumb 

drives. Updates are moved between the EViD stations and the county database through a store 

and forward mechanism. If communications are down, service to the voters is maintained 

without break. On restoration of communications, the systems clear the backlog of updates 

between the county database and the EViD stations. A hearbeat detection flags to the county 

technical staff any stations that are not communicating regularly, so that remediation can 

be swift. In the event of DOS attack on the communications, the only exposure is that 

voters could vote more than once. However since the staff at the polling sites are not informed 

that communications are lost, information that service is degraded is hard to obtain. A citizen 

going through the process cannot detect that communications are down.

Our design is not vulnerable to the single point of failures that characterized the failures in 

Sarasota County and Denver. We are concerned that you create standards that in attempting to 

fix poor design, penalizes good design also.

David S Watson

VP R&D 

VR Systems Inc
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4.16


                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                       ENDURANCE HOLDINGS CAPITAL TRUST II


         This Certificate of Trust of Endurance Holdings Capital Trust II (the
"Trust"), dated as of June 15, 2004, is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust pursuant to the Delaware
Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. s. 3810, as follows:

         (i) The name of the Trust is Endurance Holdings Capital Trust II.

         (ii) The name and statutory address of the trustee of the Trust with a
principal place of business in the State of Delaware is as follows: The Bank of
New York (Delaware), White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.

         (iii) This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing with the
Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.



<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust,
have executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first-above written.


                               /s/ Steven W. Carlsen
                               -------------------------------
                               Name: Steven W. Carlsen
                               as Administrative Trustee


                               /s/ Emily Canelo
                               -------------------------------
                               Name: Emily Canelo
                               as Administrative Trustee


                               /s/ Daniel S. Lurie
                               -------------------------------
                               Name: Daniel S. Lurie
                               as Administrative Trustee


                               THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE),
                               as Delaware Trustee

                                /s/ Kristine K. Gullo
                               -------------------------------
                               Name: Kristine K. Gullo
                               Title:  Assistant Vice President


                               THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
                               as Institutional Trustee

                               /s/ Stacey B. Poindexter
                               -------------------------------
                               Name: Stacey B. Poindexter
                               Title: Assistant Vice President