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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4756 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine 

the suitability and feasibility of designating the Soldiers’ Memorial Military Museum located in St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit of the National 

Park System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 6, 2004 

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

on Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Soldiers’ Memorial Military Museum located 

in St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit of the National Park 

System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING 

4 THE SOLDIERS’ MEMORIAL MILITARY MU5 SEUM. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds as follows: 
2 

•HR 4756 IH 

1 (1) The Soldiers’ Memorial is a tribute to all 

2 veterans located in the greater St. Louis area, in3 cluding Southern Illinois. 

4 (2) The current annual budget for the memorial 

5 is $185,000 and is paid for exclusively by the City 

6 of St. Louis. 

7 (3) In 1923, the City of St. Louis voted to 

8 spend $6,000,000 to purchase a memorial plaza and 

9 building dedicated to citizens of St. Louis who lost 

10 their lives in World War I. 

11 (4) The purchase of the 7 block site exhausted 

12 the funds and no money remained to construct a 

13 monument. 

14 (5) In 1933, Mayor Bernard F. Dickmann ap15 pealed to citizens and the city government to raise 

16 $1,000,000 to construct a memorial building and 

17 general improvement of the plaza area and the con18 struction of Soldiers’ Memorial began on October 

19 21, 1935. 

20 (6) On October 14, 1936, President Franklin 

21 D. Roosevelt officially dedicated the site. 

22 (7) On Memorial Day in 1938, Mayor 

23 Dickmann opened the building to the public. 

24 (b) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall carry 

25 out a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of 
3 

•HR 4756 IH 

1 designating the Soldiers’ Memorial Military Museum, lo2 cated at 1315 Chestnut, St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit 

3 of the National Park System. 

4 (c) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section 

5 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall 

6 apply to the conduct and completion of the study required 

7 by this section. 

8 (d) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a report 

9 describing the results the study required by this section 

10 to the Committee on Resources of the House of Represent11 atives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Re12 sources of the Senate. 

Æ
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

405 State Highway 121Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville, TX 75067

972.219.3330Phone   972.219.3311 Fax

 

August 11, 2008

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

 

I, David N. Clark, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,2008 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| */s/* David N. Clark                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| David N. Clark                        |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| August 11,   2008           |   |

 

----
Systems and Internet Infrastructure Security Laboratory Page

The TGDC and 

the Common Data Format

Professor Patrick McDaniel

P1622 Workshop

February 8, 2011

1
Systems and Internet Infrastructure Security Laboratory Page

Overview

• The Technical Guidelines Development Committee 

(TGDC) is an advisory group for EAC

‣ Technical recommendations for technical/procedural policy

‣ Developing Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0

‣ Committee: Election officials, academics, vendors, accessibility 

exports, NIST director

‣ Strong technical support from NIST research staff

2

“The TGDC sees common data formats such as those being defined 

by the P-1622 body as key to supporting standards and increasing 

the accessibility, security, and audibility of future elections.”
Systems and Internet Infrastructure Security Laboratory Page

CDF-Upcoming Needs/Efforts

• Immediate : Establishment of CDF subgroup of TGDC

‣ Decided Jan meeting, will convene soon

‣ Likely use OASIS and P-1622 guidelines as starting point

‣ Input welcome (mcdaniel@cse.psu.edu)

• Summer 2011 : OUCAVA pilot projects guidelines

‣ 2012 election will support remote voting for OUCAVA voters

‣ Will attempt to identify successes and failures of fielded systems.

• Metrics being developed within TGDC subgroup

• Fall 2011 : scheduled delivery of common data format 

specification for blank ballot delivery systems

3
#### Marco A. Calito CORADO, a/k/a Marco Antonio Calito Corado, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janet RENO, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7817.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 22, 2001.

Decided June 1, 2001.

Marco A. Calito Corado,- pro se.

Deborah C. Stanley, Richard F. Stein, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Marco A. Calito Corado filed an untimely appeal of the district court’s order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed.R.App.P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*
      *222434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)). Parties to civil actions in which the United States is a party have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(B). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R.App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on December 22, 1999; Calito Corado’s notice of appeal was filed on October 13, 2000, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Calito Corado’s failure to note a timely appeal or timely request an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the district court’s December 22, 1999, order.

Calito Corado also appeals the district court’s order of November 3, 2000, denying his request for an extension to file an untimely notice of appeal. We affirm that order because the request itself was untimely. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) (requiring request for extension *of time to*appeal to be filed within thirty days after expiration of appeal period).

We deny Calito Corado’s second motion for a stay of removal and 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

Plaintiff *

*

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0762-WS-M 

*

SEYMOUR A. IRBY, III and *

AUDREY M. IRBY, *

*

Defendants *

 *

ORDER

This case came before the Court on the Complaint of Plaintiff the United States of

America against Defendants Seymour A. Irby, III, and Audrey M. Irby, alleging that Defendants,

are liable to the United States under 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b) as, when acting as executors of the

Estate of Seymour Irby, Jr., they paid non-Government debts of the Estate prior to the claims of

the United States. The parties have reached an agreement in this matter. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants Seymour A. Irby, III, and Audrey M. Irby are liable to the United

States of America under 31 U.S.C. § 3713 in the amount of $35,500.

2. Neither Defendant Seymour A. Irby, III, nor Defendant Audrey M. Irby shall

transfer or encumber their property without the written consent of the United States Attorney’s

Office during the one-hundred (100) day period following the entry of this Order. The United

States shall not unreasonably withhold its consent for any transfer or encumbrance so long as its

interests are protected. 

Case 1:04-cv-00762-WS-M Document 44 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 2
3. If Defendants do not pay $35,500 to the United States of America in satisfaction

of their liability under this Order by ninety (90) days of the date of this Order, the Court shall

then, on the request of the United States, issue a judgment for that amount in favor of the United

States against Defendants.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2006.

 /s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SEEN AND AGREED TO:

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

DEBORAH J. RHODES

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 By: /S/ Larry Moorer

Charles Baer (BAERC6865)

Assistant United States Attorney

63 South Royal Street, Suite 600

 Mobile, Alabama 36602

 Telephone: 251-415-7161

Telefax: 251-441-5051

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

/S/ Larry Moorer

__________________________________

Larry Moorer

107 North Jackson Street

Mobile, Alabama 36602

Telephone: 251-432-0002 

lcmooreatty@bellsouth.net

Case 1:04-cv-00762-WS-M Document 44 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0019

_________________

KRISTINE DAVENPORT,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF LINCOLN, a political subdivision 

of the State of Montana; SHERIFF OF COUNTY 

OF LINCOLN, State of Montana, and ROBY 

BOWE,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Kristine Davenport, to all counsel of 

record, and to the Honorable Matthew Cuffe, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 28 2020

10/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0019
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11105 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

KLINT JONATHAN HALE

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 106

- 2

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Klint Jonathan Hale has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Hale h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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
June 20 , 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11105 Document: 00514519771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018No. 17

- 11105

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GR ANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-11105 Document: 00514519771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
<PAGE>   1
November 21, 1995

Mr. Philip K. Daniels
Paul Mueller Company
P.O. BOX 828
Springfield, Mo.  65801

Dear Phil:

This will confirm our agreement on the terms for the termination of your 
employment.

   1.  Termination is by mutual agreement for the reasons set forth 
       in your letter to me of November 20, 1995 and will become effec-
       tive December 1, 1995.

   2.  The Company will pay you $8,333.33 per month for a period of up 
       to twelve months with the first payment due on January 1,1996, 
       provided, however, that the Company's obligation for such pay-
       ments shall cease immediately upon your commencement of a new job 
       paying you at a rate in excess of $125,000 per year.  You have 
       agreed to notify us in the event you begin such work, and the 
       payment for any partial month will be apportioned accordingly.

   3.  In the event of your death during the term of this agreement, the 
       remaining payments will be made to your estate.

   4.  In consideration of the foregoing, you hereby release the 
       Company, its officers and directors, its subsidiaries and affili-
       ates, from all liability, duties, obligations, causes of actions, 
       suits, debts and sums of money, claims and demands whatsoever, 
       known or unknown, present or future, arising out of your employ-
       ment with the Company.  Additionally, you waive your right to 
       request or receive a service letter.

   5.  You agree that you are owed no benefits of any kind whatsoever 
       except as set forth herein and the benefits provided under the 
       Paul Mueller Company Employee Benefit Plan.

   6.  This letter supersedes the Severance Agreement dated March 5, 
       1994.

   7.  Nothing herein shall affect the Agreement Not to Compete signed 
       by you on March 5, 1994.

                                   34

<PAGE>   2

   8.  You agree that no promises have been made to you other than as 
       set forth herein.

Sincerely,

/S/   DANIEL C. MANNA

Dan Manna
President

Agreed:

/S/   PHILIP K. DANIELS
----------------------------

                                   35
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4618 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New 

York, as the ‘‘Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

HR 4618 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. ANTHONY I. LOMBARDI MEMORIAL POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 10 West Prospect Street in 

5 Nanuet, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the Anthony I. Lombardi 

11 Memorial Post Office Building. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 7, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### The Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Lafayette Railroad Company *v.*Dunden.

*Practice.—Paragraph Struck*Out.—Where a paragraph of an answer is struck out on motion, the ruling can only be presented for review in the Supreme Court by bill of exceptions.

APPEAL from the Shelby Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

The errors assigned in this case present two questions for our consideration; first, the propriety of the action of the court in striking out the second paragraph of the answer; and, second, in refusing to grant a new trial on the application of the defendant.

The action was brought to recover damages for the death of the infant child of the plaintiff, caused, as alleged, by the negligence of the defendant, on the Martinsville Railroad, which was being run and controlled by the defendant. The defendant answered in two paragraphs; first, the general denial; and, second, a special paragraph. The special paragraph was stricken out, on motion of the plaintiff. There ' was a trial by jury, verdict for the plaintiff, motion for a new trial by the defendant overruled, and judgment on the verdict.

The question relating to the striking out of the second paragraph of the answer is not presented by bill of exceptions, and is not therefore before us, so as to enable us to decide it. *Oiler*v. *Bodkey,*17 Ind. 600. There are other cases. The reasons for a new trial are as follows: first, because *360the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; second, because the verdict of the jury is contrary to law; third, because the damages assessed by the jury are excessive.

*E. H. Davis*and *C. Wright,*for appellant.

*B. F, Love, B. F. Davis,*and *J. Odell,*for appellee.

The evidence does not present a case which would justify this court in reversing the action of the circuit court in refusing to grant a new trial. The damages found by the jury were four hundred dollars. This was not excessive. Counsel for appellant argue questions not presented. The admissibility of certain evidence and the giving and refusing of'instructions, the questions most discussed by them, are questions not presented in the motion for a new trial, and hence not properly reserved for our consideration. *Buell*v. *Shuman, 28*Ind. 464. There are many other cases.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and five per cent, damages.
**Exhibit 32.2**

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

650 S. EdmondsLane, Suite 108, Lewisville, TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone   972.219.3311 Fax

May 10,2007

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

I,Thomas H. Ehrlich, Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofUranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31,2007 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/* Thomas H. Ehrlich                    | * * |
|--------------------------------------------|----------|
| Thomas H. Ehrlich                          |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| May 10, 2007                               |

 

----
* 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

October 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30120

Conference Calendar

 

FREDDIE RAY LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHRIS SMITH, III; BOBBY HICKMAN; CITY OF LEESVILLE; 

SYLVESTER DESMOND; WILLIE BANKS, JR.; HARRY JAMES; 

SCOTT, Lieutenant; KENNETH NOBLE; JOHN J. BOLGER; 

T. BOLTON; ROBERT ALLEN; DAVID GRIFFITH; GARY COOPER; 

RANDY PRUITT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CV-699

- - - - - - - - - -

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2003, Freddie Ray Lewis, a Louisiana resident and a

former inmate at the Leesville (La.) City Jail (“Jail”), filed

this pro se, in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging that he had been falsely imprisoned at the Jail

in 1996 and 1997. The district court granted the defendants’

motions to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6),

concluding that Lewis’s claims were barred by the res judicata

doctrine as the result of the judgment in favor of most of the

same defendants in Lewis’s prior civil rights action, Lewis v.

Smith, No. 97-CV-1420 (W.D. La. Sept. 11, 2000), and that the
No. 04-30120

-2-

claims were barred by the applicable one-year Louisiana

limitations statute for personal injury actions.

All of Lewis’s claims involving conditions of confinement

are indeed barred by the res judicata doctrine, because the

judgment in Lewis’s prior civil rights action involved the same

cause of action. See Schmeuser v. Burkburnett Bank, 937 F.2d

1025, 1031 (5th Cir. 1991); Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 439 (5th

Cir. 1987). Lewis’s claims, which accrued at the latest by 1997,

were also barred by the one-year limitations provision applicable

to Louisiana personal injury actions. See Owens v. Okure, 488

U.S. 235, 250 (1989); Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 319 (5th

Cir. 1998). Finally, Lewis’s false imprisonment claims are

barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994). See Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.

2000) (Heck doctrine applies to former prisoners). The district

court did not err in granting the motions to dismiss. See Vulcan

Materials Co. v. City of Tehuacana, 238 F.3d 382, 387 (5th Cir.

2001).

Lewis’s appeal is without arguable merit, see Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), and it is DISMISSED as

frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Lewis is warned that any future

frivolous filings will subject him to sanctions.

Lewis’s motion urging this court to waive “corrections and

additions” to his brief and to waive the record-excerpts

requirement is DENIED as unnecessary.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION

WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4538 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4538

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 180.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2004

 Mr. Langevin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 180.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 180.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.34.51      Pigment Yellow 180  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 77804-81-                                                 31/2006
                         0) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3204.17.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```