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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4453

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To improve access to physicians in medically underserved 

areas.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4453 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF VISA REQUIREMENTS WITH 

2 RESPECT TO INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL 

3 GRADUATES. 

4 (a) EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 220(c) of the Immi6 gration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 

7 1994 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note) (as amended by section 

8 11018 of Public Law 107–273) is amended by strik9 ing ‘‘2004.’’ and inserting ‘‘2006.’’. 

10 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

11 by paragraph (1) shall take effect as if enacted on 

12 May 31, 2004. 

13 (b) EXEMPTION FROM H–1B NUMERICAL LIMITA14 TIONS.—Section 214(l)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Na15 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(l)(2)(A)) is amended by add16 ing at the end the following: ‘‘The numerical limitations 

17 contained in subsection (g)(1)(A) shall not apply to any 

18 alien whose status is changed under the preceding sen19 tence, if the alien obtained a waiver of the 2-year foreign 

20 residence requirement upon a request by an interested 

21 Federal agency or an interested State agency.’’. 

22 (c) LIMITATION ON MEDICAL PRACTICE AREAS.—

23 Section 214(l)(1)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality 

24 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(l)(1)(D)) is amended by striking 

25 ‘‘agrees to practice medicine’’ and inserting ‘‘agrees to 

26 practice primary care or specialty medicine’’. 
3

HR 4453 RDS 

1 (d) EXEMPTION FROM GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS.—

2 Section 214(l)(1)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality 

3 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(l)(1)(D)), as amended by subsection 

4 (c), is further amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘except that,’’ and all that fol6 lows through the period at the end and inserting 

7 ‘‘except that—’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(i) in the case of a request by the Depart10 ment of Veterans Affairs, the alien shall not be 

11 required to practice medicine in a geographic 

12 area designated by the Secretary; and 

13 ‘‘(ii) in the case of a request by an inter14 ested State agency, the head of such State 

15 agency determines that the alien is to practice 

16 medicine under such agreement in a facility 

17 that serves patients who reside in one or more 

18 geographic areas so designated by the Secretary 

19 of Health and Human Services (without regard 

20 to whether such facility is within such a des21 ignated geographic area), and the grant of such 

22 waiver would not cause the number of the waiv23 ers granted on behalf of aliens for such State 

24 for a fiscal year (within the limitation described 
4

HR 4453 RDS 

1 in subparagraph (B)) in accordance with the 

2 conditions of this clause to exceed 5.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 15, 2001 Sessio

n STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JERRY W. JORDAN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 96-C-1641 Seth Norman, Judge

No. M1999-00813-CCA-R3-CD Filed October 11, 2001

J OE G. R ILEY , J., concurring in p art and dissenting

in part.

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects ex cept for the fa ilure to charge the lesserincluded offense. Al though I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the

failure to char

ge reckless homicide was error, I

would find th

e failure to

charge the lesser offense harmless bey ond a reasonable doubt. Our supreme court has held that, by finding a defendant g uilty of the highest offense to the exclusion of the immediately lesser offense, all other lesser offenses were necessarily rejected. State v. Williams , 977 S.W.2d 101, 106 (Tenn. 1998 ). Although the jury convicted the defendant of second degree murder as opposed to the “highest offense” c harged of f

irst degree murder, the Williams rationale applie s. Since the jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murde r and not voluntary manslaughter, it necessarily rejected al l other le sser offenses below second degree murde r. The rejection of all other lesser offenses includes reckless homicide, which was no t charged, and criminally neglige nt homicide, which was charged. I further disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was no e vidence o f adequate provocation in the record. B ased upon the evid ence introduce

d at trial, I wo

uld conclude that

it was a question for the jury whether the defendant was adequately provoked. See State v. Johnson , 909 S.W.2d 461, 464 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The recent case of Statev. Bowles , ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2001), found harmless error i n the failure to charge sexual battery as a lesser- includ ed offense of aggravated rape, for which the defendant was convicted. The court noted the trial court charged the lesser-included offenses of rape and aggravated sexual battery, and “[e]ither of these lesser-included offenses would be considered more serious than sexual battery. . . . [I]t seems highly improbable that it would have chosen to [find defendant guilty of sexual

batte ry] when it had declined to consider other, more serious lesserincluded offenses.” Id . at ___.-2-

The jury convicted t

h e defendant of second degree murder and declined to consider voluntary manslaughter, which is a “more s e rious offense” t han reckless homi

cide. I, ther

efore, would conclude the failure to ch

arge reckle

ss homicide was ha

rmless beyo

nd a reasonable

doubt. I would remand for a hearing on the Batson issue.



### __________________________________ _ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: Marie H. Whitehead, Executrix, Station KWRW, Facility ID 17835, BPH-20140925ABH, From Rusk, TX, To Troup, TX; Top O Texas Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Station KASV, Facility ID 175031, BPED-20141104AEB, From Red River, NM, To Sanford, CO.

# DATES:

The agency must receive comments on or before February 3, 2015.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,                     *http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/​prod/​cdbs/​pubacc/​prod/​cdbs_​pa.htm.*

                    A copy of this application may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or                     *www.BCPIWEB.com.*

Federal Communications Commission.

James D. Bradshaw,

Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 2014-28509 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
10854.

#### Edwards *v.*Blackshear *et al.*

Decided December 16, 1919.

Smith, J.

Under the provisions of section 5385 of the Civil Code (1910), in order to maintain a proceeding to evict a person in possession of lands, the relation of landlord and tenant must exist between the parties. *Henry*v. *Perry,*110 *Ga.*630 (36 S. E. 87); *Watson*v. *Toliver,*103 *Ga.*123 (29 S. E. 614); *Story*v. *Epps,*105 *Ga.*504 (31 S. E. 109); *Mackenzie*v. *Minis,*132 *Ga.*323 (63 S. E. 900, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003, 16 Ann. Cas. 723). Where one is in possession of lands under a bond for title and surrenders the bond for title, but remains in possession of the lands, and thereafter the lands are sold to a third person, the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the vendee of the original owner and the person in possession, and therefore the summary remedy provided for by the Civil Code, § 5385, does not lie. Under this ruling the court did not err in dismissing the dispossessory warrant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenhins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*623Eviction; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. August 1, 1919.

*R. Earl Gamp,*for plaintiff.

*Larsen & Crockett, G. G. Bidgood,*for defendants.
T

Modeling the Rheological

Properties of Concrete

Nicos Martys

James Sims
T

 Input

•Cement Paste

–Viscosity

–Yield stress

•Aggregates

– grading

– concentration

 Input

•Cement Paste

–Viscosity

–Yield stress

•Aggregates

– grading

– concentration

 Output

 Mortar/concrete

•Viscosity

•Yield stress

 Output

 Mortar/concrete

•Viscosity

•Yield stress

Prediction
T

Viscosity vs. Solid Concentration

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

F/F*

μ' (Pa.s)

Mortars w/o HRWRA

Concretes w/o HRWRA

Mortars with HRWRA

Concretes with HRWRA

Intermediate concretes

Concretres w/ SF

Model
T

What is Concrete?

• Aggregates: 1- 20 mm

• Sand: 0.5 - 1 mm

• Fine fillers: < 5 μm

• Cement: 1-100 μm

• Water

• Chemical admixtures
T

Divide and Conquer

• Cement Paste: Water + Cement Particles +

Admixtures + ...

• Mortar: Cement + Sand

• Concrete: Mortar + Aggregate
T

Dissipative-Particle-Dynamics

• Mesoscopic particles represent clusters of

molecules.

• Interactions conserve mass and momentum,

isotropic and Galilean invariant produce

hydrodynamic behavior consistent with

Navier-Stokes equations.

• Molecular Dynamics: Brownian motion +

velocity dependent dissipation.
T

Dissipative Particle Dynamics

i i ij ij p p e

r r r

′

= +∑Ω

i

i

i i

p

m

t

r r

r r r

′

= + ′

d

ij W ri

rj { ij pi pjeij}

r r r r r

Ω = ( − ) Π −w( − )⋅
T

Suspension of spherical aggregates
T

Tracking of particle motion
T

Relative viscosity vs.

packing fraction

de Kruif, van Lersel, Vrij, Russel
T

Tumbling of an aggregate under

shear

Jeffrey’s tumble
T

Ellipsoidal aggregates under shear
T

High solid fraction suspension under shear
T

Rebars

Flow under gravity between rebars
T

Future Work

• Larger particle size distribution

• Add inter-particle interactions

• Model flow in more complex geometries

• Flow around rebars

• Multiphase flow
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-10059

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tommy Allen Dickenson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-60-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Tommy Allen Dickenson appeals his guilty plea conviction and 

sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g). He contends for the first time on appeal that Section 922(g) is an 

unconstitutional exercise of power under the Commerce Clause and, 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 25, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10059 Document: 00516405473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2022
No. 22-10059

2

alternatively, that it should be construed to require either recent movement 

of a firearm across state lines or movement in commerce as a consequence of 

the defendant’s conduct. Dickenson acknowledges that these arguments are 

foreclosed, but he explains that he seeks to preserve them for further review. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, 

in the alternative, an extension of time to file its brief.

As Dickenson concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See United 

States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 

2524 (2021). The Government is thus correct that summary affirmance is 

appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th 

Cir. 1969). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10059 Document: 00516405473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2022
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40664

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE CELESTINO-MAGDALENO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-00-CR-24-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Celestino-Magdaleno appeals from his guilty plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry by a previously

deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). CelestinoMagdaleno argues that his prior felony conviction is an element

of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment.

Celestino-Magdaleno acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

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

he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review

in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct.
No. 00-40664

-2-

2348 (2000). The Supreme Court’s Apprendi decision did not

overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Dabeit, 231

F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (U.S.

Jan. 26, 2001) (No. 00-8299). 

Celestino-Magdaleno also argues that the indictment fails to

charge an offense because it does not allege any general intent.

This court’s recent decision in United States v. Guzman-Ocampo,

236 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2000), is dispositive. The indictment

alleged every statutorily required element of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and

fairly imported that Celestino-Magdaleno’s reentry was a

voluntary act in view of the allegations that he had been

excluded, deported, and removed and that he was present without

having obtained the consent of the Attorney General. CelestinoMagdaleno failed to challenge the indictment as to his

voluntariness. Consequently, under Guzman-Ocampo, the indictment

was statutorily sufficient. 

Accordingly, his judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      --------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended February 28, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffrey E. Wallin, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

      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 the Company.


                                                     /S/ JEFFREY E. WALLIN
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Name:  Jeffrey E. Wallin
                                                     Title:  President and CEO
                                                     Date: April 18, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.31


                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
                                       OF
                             WOOD LICENSE CO., LLC

                                      NAME

         The name of the limited liability corporation is WOOD License Co.,
LLC.

                          REGISTERED AGENT AND OFFICE

         The address of the initial registered office of this corporation is
1013 Centre Road, Wilmington, Delaware, 19805; and the name of the registered
agent of the corporation in the State of Delaware is the Corporation Service
Company.

Dated: January 23, 1998
                                                --------------------------------
                                                          Gayle C. Toney
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28509]



[[Page 72175]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change The 
Community of License

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change 
the community of license: Marie H. Whitehead, Executrix, Station KWRW, 
Facility ID 17835, BPH-20140925ABH, From Rusk, TX, To Troup, TX; Top O 
Texas Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Station KASV, Facility ID 
175031, BPED-20141104AEB, From Red River, NM, To Sanford, CO.

DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before February 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of these applications is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 
20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base 
System, http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm.
    A copy of this application may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-
378-3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com.

Federal Communications Commission.
James D. Bradshaw,
Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2014-28509 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1327

KENNETH SEATON; MARGARET SEATON, as individuals, d/b/a Hi-Tech Hygiene,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SCIENTIFIC HYGIENE, INCORPORATED, a Nevada

corporation; KENNETH KROLL; ROBERT WARMINGTON,

Individually,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, West Virginia,

Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-95-127-3)

Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 12, 2000

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Kenneth Seaton, Margaret Seaton, Appellants Pro Se. Hugo Nathan

Gerstl, Monterey, California, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth and Margaret Seaton appeal the district court’s orders

entered on February 18, February 28 and March 13, 2000, in their

civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Seaton v. Scientific

Hygiene, Inc., No. CA-95-127-3 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 18 & 28, 2000; Mar.

13, 2000). We deny the Seatons’ motion to stay the district

court’s proceeding and motion for extraordinary relief and the

Appellees’ motions to dismiss and strike the Seatons’ reply brief.

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
2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 2 4 - 0203 JOEY ZAHARA,

Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ADVANCED NEUROLOGY SPECIALISTS ,

Defendant/Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________ **ORDER GRANTING AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND MONTANA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR** 

**LEAVE TO APPEAR AMICI CURIAE**

_____________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Eighth Judi ci alDistrict of the State of Montana, in and for Cascade County, Cause No. C DV - 14 - 093 ; The Honorable John Kutz ma n

**_____________________________________________________________** Pursuant to the unopposed motion by the American Medical Association (“AMA”) and Montana Medical Association (“MMA”) for leave to appear as amici curiae in this matter, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that AM A and M MA’s motion is GRANTED. AMA and MMA shall file its amici curiae brief on or before the deadline for Defendant - Appellee’s response brief, an d shall conform to all schedules adopted by this Court. Electronically signed and dated below.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 19 2024

06/19/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0203
#### Elizabeth M. Fox v. Probate Judge for Wayne County

*Appeal from probate.*

IChe allowance of an appeal from the probate court does not depend on the probate judge, but is a right fixed by statute; there is,-therefore, •no occasion to obtain -an order from the probate judge allowing an appeal.

'Motion for order to show cause.

Submitted and denied June 13.

N. *E. Engle*for the motion.

*644CONNECTIONS.

Page 5, line 10. — Nead Brush for Brnsli.

Page 172, line 9. — Bead statutes for statntes.

Page *200.*— Ciarle *v. Mitchell*was submitted Oct. 7.

Page 395, line — 4.—Nead *Cahen v. Continental etc. Ins^ Co.*

Page 415, line — 5.—Nead *in any other case*instead *of*“ on another trial.”

Page 427, line — 9.—Nead s. o. for S. C.

Page 433, line — 5.—Nead *lay trade in streets.*

Page 525, note 1. — The note is wrong. It should be :

' When a defendant is arrested on criminal warrant in one county an® taken into another where he gives hail, he cannot *there*be arrested on » civil warrant for the same matter at the suit of the prosecutor...