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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2494 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a 

deportable offense, and for other purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2494 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Our Law en3 forcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act 

4 of 2023’’ or the ‘‘POLICE Act of 2023’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ASSAULT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. 

6 Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following: 

9 ‘‘(G) ASSAULT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OF10 FICER.— 

11 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any alien who has 

12 been convicted of, who admits having com13 mitted, or who admits committing acts 

14 which constitute the essential elements of, 

15 any offense involving assault of a law en16 forcement officer is deportable. 

17 ‘‘(ii) CIRCUMSTANCES.—The cir18 cumstances referred to in clause (i) are 

19 that the law enforcement officer was as20 saulted— 

21 ‘‘(I) while he or she was engaged 

22 in the performance of his or her offi23 cial duties; 

24 ‘‘(II) because of the performance 

25 of his or her official duties; or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2494 RFS

1 ‘‘(III) because of his or her sta2 tus as a law enforcement officer. 

3 ‘‘(iii) DEFINITIONS.—In this subpara4 graph— 

5 ‘‘(I) the term ‘assault’ has the 

6 meaning given that term in the juris7 diction where the act occurred; and 

8 ‘‘(II) the term ‘law enforcement 

9 officer’ is a person authorized by 

10 law— 

11 ‘‘(aa) to apprehend, arrest, 

12 or prosecute an individual for 

13 any criminal violation of law; or 

14 ‘‘(bb) to be a firefighter or 

15 other first responder.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. REPORT ON ALIENS DEPORTED FOR ASSAULTING A 

17 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. 

18 On an annual basis, the Secretary of Homeland Secu19 rity shall submit to Congress and make publicly available 

20 on the website of the Department of Homeland Security 

21 a report on the number of aliens who were deported during 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 2494 RFS

1 the previous year under section 237(a)(2)(G) of the Immi2 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(G)). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2023. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00605-CV

Alfredo Reveles and Dora Reveles

v.

Germania Farm Mutual Insurance Association and Jose Lopez

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 4 of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2017-CCL-01297

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 14, 2019
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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/ Geoffrey P. Talbot





**Geoffrey
      P. Talbot**


****  **Chief Executive Officer**


**August
      14, 2007**




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
   FORM 6-K Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of:                     February 2005
    
    Commission File No.: 1-11796
 MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION  1600 Britannia Road East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4W 1J2 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) PREMDOR INC.
(Former Name of Registrant) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form
20-F or Form 40-F:  Form 20-F
    
    o
    
    Form 40-F
    
    þ
 Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):
 Yes
    
    o
    
    No
    
    þ
 Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Yes
    
    o
    
    No
    
    þ
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form
is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Yes
    
    o
    
    No
    
    þ
  If Yes is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule
12g3-2(b): N/A




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONDate: March 4, 2005By:
    /s/ Harley UlsterName:
    Harley UlsterTitle:
    Executive Vice-President
and Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    
    Notice of Application and Notice and Management Proxy Circular dated March 4, 200599.2
    
    
    Form of Proxy Card99.3
    
    
    Form of Voting Instruction Form99.4
    
    
    Letter of Transmittal with respect to the Common Shares of Masonite International Corporation
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00732- CR NO. 03-05-00733- CR Hur be r t W ill iamWa shin gt on, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NOS. D -1-DC -05-20 2231 & D -1-DC -05-20 2232 HO NORAB LE BO B PERK INS, JUDGE P RESIDING M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Hurbe rt Washington see ks to appea l from judg ments of conviction for possession of co ca ine. The tria l court has c ertified that these ar e plea barg ain ca ses and Washing ton has no rig ht of appea l. SeeT e x . R . Ap p . P . 2 5 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) . In a d d i t i o n , th e n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l w e r e f

i l e d m o r e th anth i rty d ays afte r imposition of sentence. Se e id . rule 26.2(a )(1) . The a ppeals a re dismissed. Se e id . rule 25.2(d) .

___________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 2, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                             Civitas BankGroup, Inc.
                              List of Subsidiaries


         Wholly-Owned Bank Subsidiaries
                Bank of Dyer - Dyer, Tennessee
                BankTennessee - Collierville, Tennessee
                Cumberland Bank - Carthage, Tennessee
                Cumberland Bank South - Nashville, Tennessee
                The Bank of Mason - Mason, Tennessee

         Each of these wholly-owned subsidiaries is incorporated under the laws
         under the state of Tennessee.

         The company also owns 50% of The Murray Banc Holding Company LLC, which
         owns 100% of The Murray Bank, a bank organized under the laws under the
         state of Kentucky and 50% of Insurors Bank of Tennessee, a bank
         organized under the laws under the state of Tennessee.

         Non-Bank Subsidiaries

         The company owns 100% of the common securities of the Cumberland
         Capital Trust I and Cumberland Capital Statutory Trust II, Connecticut
         Business Trusts.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2331 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2331

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Agency 
for International Development, Operating Expenses 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 Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Agency 
for International Development, Operating Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR U.S. AGENCY FOR 
              INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, OPERATING EXPENSES FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Agency for 
International Development, Operating Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
#### Frank A. ALVEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James JANECKA, Warden; Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-2088.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2008.

Frank A. Alvey, Los Lunas, NM, pro se.

Max Shepherd, Office of the Attorney General State of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

*114ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL

TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Frank Alvey was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of child sexual abuse and related crimes. Having exhausted his state remedies, he filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising numerous claims of error primarily based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The magistrate judge, in a through report, recommended Alvey’s claims be denied.

Alvey filed objections to the report. The district court characterized Alvey’s objections as “primarily rephras[ing] the arguments already addressed by the magistrate judge.” (R. Doc. 43 at 1.) Applying a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s recommendations and Alvey’s objections, the district court construed “the objections to be without merit.” *(Id.)*It denied Alvey’s application for habeas relief, his motion for an evidentiary hearing and his subsequent request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA).

Appearing pro se1 and *in forma pauperis,*Alvey renews his request for a COA to this Court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). We agree “[a]n evidentiary hearing is not required because Alvey’s claims can be resolved on the basis of the record. *See Parker v. Scott,*[394] F.3d 1302, 1324 (10th Cir.2005)” (R. Doc. 43. at 2.) Alvey’s brief is a reiteration of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims reviewed and addressed in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings which were adopted by the district court. We see no need to repeat those well-reasoned decisions.

The magistrate judge’s recommendation and subsequent district court’s dismissal were clearly, concisely and correctly stated. Jurists of reason would not disagree with the result. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). After careful review, we agree “[a]n evidentiary hearing is not required because Alvey’s claims can be resolved on the basis of the record. *See Parker v. Scott,*[394] F.3d 1302, 1324 (10th Cir. 2005)” (R. Doc. 43. at 2.)

We DENY Alvey’s request for COA and DISMISS his putative appeal. Because his appeal is being denied, no substantive relief can be granted.

1

. We liberally construe pro se pleadings. *See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan.,*318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

April 4, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00072

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H. R. M, A CHILD,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018EM504989 Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On March 27, 2019

, after the notice of appeal filing fees remained unpaid, we ordered
A ppellant to show cause in writing by April 8, 2019 , that the filing fees have been paid. We also ordered Appellant to file a docketing statement. Appellant paid the filing fees . The portion of

o ur March 27, 2019 order regarding payment of filing fees is satisfied.
The docketing statement has not yet been filed; it remains due.

We reinstate the appellate timetable. The appellate record is due within TEN DAYS of the date of this order.

_____________________ ____________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th day of April, 2019

.

_________________ __________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Civitas BankGroup, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned certifies, 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 results of operations of
      the Company.

                                     By: /s/Richard Herrington
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Richard Herrington
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         March 16, 2006

                                     By: /s/ Lisa Musgrove
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Lisa Musgrove
                                         Executive Vice President,
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         and Chief Operating Officer
                                         March 16, 2006
**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
      condition with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals
      Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. 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.








By: /s/
      George G. Usher





George
      G.
      Usher,


Chief
      Executive Officer


June
      14,
      2006





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.
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

The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used
for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Rosemary Mazanet, Acting Chief Executive Officer certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge (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 results of
operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version 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.

Signed at the City of  Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 14th
day of November, 2005.

/s/ Rosemary Mazanet
---------------------
Rosemary Mazanet
Acting Chief Executive Officer
J. A30045/17 2018 PA Super 278 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. : : CHARLES WAYNE POU , : No. 95 WDA 20 17 : Appellant : Appeal from the PCRA Order , January 9, 2017 , in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No . CP - 25 - CR - 0002742 - 2013 BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. CONCURRING OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2018 Although I agree with the Majority’s thorough discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Weaver v. Massachusetts , 137 S.Ct . 1899 (2017), on the issue of prejudice in the context of direct and collateral review, I would affirm on the PCRA court’s finding that direct appeal counsel had a reasonable basis for not raising a defective waiver colloquy issue. Under oath, during the colloquy, appellant orally and in writing stated that he knew the possible maximum sentences for the crimes with which he was charged, and even in seeking PCRA relief, he has not asserted that he did not know the range of sentences. Admittedly, this writer participated in the panel that remanded to the PCRA court for a hearing on the reasonableness prong; however, I notedJ. A30045/17

- 2 - my dissent because I believe the original colloquy complied with Pa.R.Crim.P. 121.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No . 15

- BG

- 889
I N RE J EROME E. C LAIR , R ESPONDENT

. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration N o. 207431 ) On Report and Recommendation o f the Board on Professional Responsibility

( BDN

- 025

- 14 ) ( Submitted May 17, 2016 Decided November 3 , 2016 )
Before F ISHER and E ASTERLY , Associate Judges , and K ING , Senior Judge.
P ER C URIAM : On August 3, 2015, the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) found that Jerome E. Clair, respondent, violated District of
Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (a)(1), 3.4 (c), 8.4 (c), and 8.5 (d) in connection with his representation in a personal injury action against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, as well as Rules 1.15 (a), 1.15 (c), 3.4 (c),
8.4 (b), and 8.4 (c) in connection with his representation in an estate matter. T he Board adopted all but one of the Ad Hoc Hearing Com mittee’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law , to which neither Mr. Clair nor Bar Counsel had filed exceptions. Concluding that Mr. Clair had intentionally misappropriate d funds 11/3 /162

from the client in the estate matter , the Board recommended that he should be disbarred, with the requirement to pay restitution with interest, pursuant to In re
Addams , 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (en banc)

.

Pursuant to District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 9 (h)(2), “i f no ex ceptions
are filed to the Board’ s report, the Court [of Appeals] will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions. ” See also, e.g. , In re Wemhoff , 142 A.3d 573 (D.C. 2016) (per curiam); In re Fitzgerald , 109 A.3d 619 (D.C. 2014) (per curiam); In re
Hudson , 89 A.3d 517 (D.C. 2014) (per curiam). Neither Mr. Clair nor Bar Counsel filed exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Board. 1

Accordin gly, r espondent Jerome E. Clair is hereby disbarred f rom the
District of Columbia Bar. For purposes of reinstatement, the disbarment will begin on the date that the respondent files an affidavit demonstrating compliance with District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 14 (g). See § 14 (f).

1 Bar Counsel waived any exception to the Report and Recommendation of the Board if Mr. Clair did not file exceptions.3

It is further ordered th at, as a condition of reinstatement, r espondent must
pay in restitution the amount s determined by the Board: $51,257.88, plus interest at the legal rate, to the Estate of Mable Mills ( or to the Clients’ Security Fund , to the extent that it has paid any mo nies in these matters) ; $1,020, plus the legal interest rate, to Matthew Goodman, Esq.; and $500, plus the legal interest rate, to the registry of the Superior Court.

So o rdered.