alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GERALD K. STOKES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 69 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of October , 2019, the Application for Leave to File

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30009]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems 
Integrated Review Group Clinical, Integrative and Molecular 
Gastroenterology Study Section.
    Date: January 26-27, 2015
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Mushtaq A. Khan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2176, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-1778, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddb6b5bcb3b09dbeaeaff3b3b4b5f3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a61626b64674a69797824646362246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30009 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6031

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREEMAN LEE ROGERS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-137; CA-05-106-3) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freeman Lee Rogers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Freeman Lee Rogers, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1891 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel 

of the House for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House 

of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office 

of the Law Revision Counsel of the House for fiscal 

year 2024. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1891 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SALARIES 

3 AND EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF THE LAW 

4 REVISION COUNSEL OF THE HOUSE FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses 

9 of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House 

10 for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $3,209,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00975-CV

James Fails 

v.

Bernice Yost Special Conservator for Georgia Cox

NO. 412,338-401 IN THE PROBATE COURT NO 3 OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

SUPP CLK RECORD

MT FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING

FILING

RPT RECORD

CLK RECORD

$10.00

$42.00

$10.00

$20.00

$175.00

$310.00

$24.00

02/18/2015

02/17/2015

01/23/2015

12/22/2014

12/22/2014

12/15/2014

12/15/2014

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$591.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this July 31, 2015.
11989.

#### APPLING *v.*THE STATE.

Evidence as to an assault upon a person of a name different from the one that the indictment alleges to be the name of the assaulted person will not support a conviction of assault with intent to murder, where there is no evidence that the person assaulted was ever known or called by the name alleged in the indictment.

Decided March 8, 1921.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Lincoln superior court — Judge Walker. November 4, 1920.

*Earle M. Norman, Colley & Colley,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. C. Norman, solicitor-general,*contra.

*419Bloodworth, J.

Henry Appling was convicted under an indictment which, charged him with assault with intent to murder Henry Esquire by shooting the said Esquire with a pistol. The evidence shows that the accused shot at Willie Askew four times with a pistol, one shot hitting him. There is not a particle of evidence to show that the accused-shot, or shot at, Henry Esquire, or that Henry Esquire was ever known as Willie Askew, or called by that name. The verdict of guilty, therefore, is contrary to law and evidence. *Irwin*v. *State,*117 *Ga. 722*(45 S. E. 59), and cases cited.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Lulee, J., concur.*
Exhibit 99.5

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                           (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of 3Si Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Dated: May 13, 2003                    /s/ Jerome K. Thorson
                                       Jerome K. Thorson, President, Chief
                                       Executive Officer and Director
12025.

#### Simmons *v.*Allen.

Hill, J.

Suit in a justice’s court was brought upon a promissory note for the principal sum of $55, and during the trial in that court the defendant’s attorney entered a credit of $10 on the note, and judgment was thereupon rendered for the plaintiff for $45 principal, besides interest; and within the time allowed by law the defendant filed an appeal to the superior court. When the case was called in the superior court counsel for the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, on the *726ground that the court was without jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy was less than $50; and this motion was sustained and the appeal dismissed. *Held:*Error. The right to appeal is fixed by the pleadings, and not by reductions which may be made at the trial in the justice’s court, nor by the amount of the final judgment. *Hart*v. Gordon, 8 *Ga. App.*825 (70 S. E. 193); *Bell*v. Davis, 93 *Ga.*233 (18 S. E. 647); *Dyar*v. *Scott,*99 *Ga.*96 (24 S. E. 855); *Barnes*v. *Vandiver,*5 *Ga. App.*162 (62 S. E. 994); Civil Code (1910), § 4738.

Decided April 14, 1921.

Appeal from Bibb superior court — Judge Malcolm D. Jones. September 17, 1920.

*J. P. Burnett,*for plaintiff in error. *Hunter & Daly,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., conowr.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7978
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01- cr-00533-PJM; 8:05-cv-00255-PJM) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for clarification, filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reyes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reyes’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

William C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

(1)     the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the applicable 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 Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

/s/ William C. Owens

William C. Owens

Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General Partner

August 16, 2006

 

/s/ Bryan H. Draper

Bryan H. Draper

Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General Partner

August 16, 2006
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10322

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE CABALLERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CR-163-R)

August 9, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Caballero, a Texas state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence as violative of

the double jeopardy clause. Caballero maintains that he was twice punished in that
1

 _____ U.S. _____ (June 24, 1996), 1996 WL 340815, *14--*16.

2

Id. at *13.

2

a civil forfeiture of his automobile occurred prior to his sentencing.

Caballero’s complaint is foreclosed by the holding in the very recent decision

of the Supreme Court in United States v. Ursery,

1

reaffirming “our traditional

understanding that civil forfeiture does not constitute punishment for the purpose

of the Double Jeopardy Clause.”2

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 118 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 192 

[Report No. 118–150] 

To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting 

in elections in the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself, Mr. ELLZEY, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. BABIN, and Ms. 

GREENE of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

JULY 18, 2023 

Additional sponsors: Ms. MACE, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. BOST, Mr. 

FALLON, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BUCHANAN, Ms. FOXX, Mr. 

STEWART, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. FRY, Mr. CRAWFORD, Ms. VAN DUYNE, 

Mr. CLYDE, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. ROUZER, 

Mr. TIMMONS, and Mr. OWENS

JULY 18, 2023 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 9, 2023] 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 192 RH

A BILL 

To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United 

States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 192 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN DIS4 TRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTIONS. 

5 An individual who is not a citizen of the United States 

6 may not vote in an election for public office in the District 

7 of Columbia or in any ballot initiative or referendum in 

8 the District of Columbia. 

9 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LOCAL RESIDENT VOTING RIGHTS 

10 AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022. 

11 The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 

12 2022 (D.C. Law 24–242) is repealed, and any provision 

13 of law amended or repealed by such Act shall be restored 

14 or revived as if such Act had not been enacted into law. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from 

voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 

2022.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 118 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 192 

[Report No. 118–150] 

A BILL 

To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the 

trict of Columbia. United States from voting in elections in the DisJULY 18, 2023 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee 

dered to be printed of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and orVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:25 Jul 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6651 Sfmt 6651 E:\BILLS\H192.RH H192

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
 




 
 RESTRICTED SECURITIES SEE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
NUMBER 
SHARES 
FULLY PAID 
State Street Corporation 
NON-ASSESSABLE 
Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series F 
No Par Value Per
Sale 
This Certifies that ** SPECIMEN ** is the registered holder of Shares of State Street Corporation transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the
holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate
to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed this day of A.D.20 
Vice President 
Treasurer 
©GOES 721 







 



 
 State Street Corporation (the “Company”) will furnish without charge, to each shareholder who so requests, a summary of the
powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Company and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and rights, and the variations in rights,
preferences and limitations determined for each series, which are fixed by the Articles of Organization of the Company, as amended, and the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Company, and the authority of the Board of Directors to
determine variations for future series. Such requests may be made to the office of the Secretary of the Company or to the transfer agent. The Board of Directors may require the owner of a lost or destroyed stock certificate, or his legal
representatives, to give the Company a bond to indemnify it and its transfer agents and registrars against any claim that may be made against them on account of the alleged loss or destruction of any such certificate. 
The securities represented by this instrument are not savings accounts, deposits or other obligations of a bank and are not insured by the federal deposit insurance corporation or
any other governmental agency. 
The Company has more than one class of stock authorized to be issued. The Company will furnish without charge to each stockholder
upon written request a copy of the full text of the preferences, voting powers, qualifications and special and relative rights of the shares of each class of stock (and any series thereof) authorized to be issued by the Company as set forth in the
Articles of Organization of the Company and amendments thereto as filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
For Value Received, hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises. 
Dated 20 In presence of 
NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
Exhibit 31.2
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Robert P. Capps, certify that:
(1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TeraForce Technology Corporation; (2)  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; (4)  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
(5)  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 16, 2005          /s/ ROBERT P. CAPPS   Robert P. Capps   Chief Financial Officer