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

★

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 447 

Recognizing and commending the SummerSet DC Music Series and its performers and partners for benefiting the District of Columbia, District 

of Columbia regional residents, and visitors to the Nation’s capital. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2019 

Ms. NORTON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and commending the SummerSet DC Music Series and its performers and partners for benefiting the 

District of Columbia, District of Columbia regional residents, and visitors to the Nation’s capital. 

Whereas the National Mall Revitalization and Designation 

Act (H.R. 2453, as introduced in the 114th Congress) 

sought to enhance visitor enjoyment, amenities, and cultural experiences on and in the vicinity of the National 

Mall for residents and visitors; 

Whereas the District of Columbia Commission on the Arts 

and Humanities, the Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority, the National Park Service, Wolf Trap, 

and the Southwest Business Improvement District are 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 447 IH1S 

partners in sponsoring the 2019 SummerSet DC Music 

Series from June 3rd to June 6th; 

Whereas many Federal and other employees work downtown, 

close to Metro stations and in the vicinity of the National 

Mall; 

Whereas the downtown District of Columbia area and the 

National Mall are national and regional tourist attractions; 

Whereas the SummerSet DC Music Series offers entertainment to workers and visitors alike; 

Whereas the National Mall is a national treasure, supported 

by United States taxpayers, that provides a unique park 

space with potential for various kinds of outdoor enjoyment; 

Whereas many talented amateur and professional musicians 

reside in the District of Columbia and the national capital region; 

Whereas the National Mall provides a natural stage for the 

display of city and regional talent; 

Whereas this year the SummerSet DC Music Series will be 

held at Hancock Park at L’Enfant Metro Station, Archives Metro Station, and 12th Street and Madison Drive 

NW; and 

Whereas 2019 is the seventh season for the SummerSet DC 

Music Series: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes and commends— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HRES 447 IH1S 

1 (1) the SummerSet DC Music Series for en2 hancing urban life and musical culture in the Na3 tion’s capital and appreciation of the outdoors; 

4 (2) local and regional performers bringing their 

5 talents to the SummerSet DC Music Series; and 

6 (3) the District of Columbia Commission on the 

7 Arts and Humanities, the Washington Metropolitan 

8 Area Transit Authority, the National Park Service, 

9 Wolf Trap, and the Southwest Business Improve10 ment District for their public service in providing 

11 live music performances at no charge to the public. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of David Burr, Appellant, v Timothy B. Howard, Sheriff of Erie County, Respondent.

Submitted June 18, 2012;

decided September 6, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-20156

No. 98-20157

Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUMBERTO OCAMPO,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CENELIA OCAMPO-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CR-109-1)

April 8, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
 

* Pursuant to5th Circuit R. 47.5, the Court has det ermined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule

47.5.4.

-2-

PER CURIAM:*

Humberto Ocampo and Cenelia Ocampo-Perez appeal from their sentences after pleading

guilty to conspiracy and drug charges. Both defendants argue that the district court erred in

attributing to them 66.3 kilograms of cocaine under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The amount of drugs

attributed to a defendant must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993). Such a finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible

in light of the record as a whole. See id. The district court’s determination that the defendants are

responsible for 66.3 kilograms of cocaine issupported by the record. Furthermore, neither defendant

presented evidence to rebut their Pre-Sentence Reports (PSR), which also attributed 66.3 kilograms

of cocaine to the defendants. Unless a defendant presents rebuttal evidence, a sentencing court may

adopt a PSR’s factual findings without further inquiry. See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120

(5th Cir. 1995).

Humberto Ocampo also argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level by

three for his aggravating role in the offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) provides for a three-level increase

if the defendant was a manager or supervisor within a criminal activity involving five or more

participants. A sentencing court’s determination that a defendant played such a leadership role is a

factualfinding reviewable only for clear error. See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329, cert.

denied, 118 S. Ct. 1851 (1998). The district court’s finding that Humberto Ocampo was a manager

of the criminal enterprise is supported by the record. Furthermore, Humberto Ocampo failed to

provide evidence rebutting his PSR. See Vital, 68 F.3d at 120. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ELLIOTT YOUNG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 482 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of January, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Feliciano, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 754]

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar D. Cirigliano, J., at plea; John E Collins, J., at sentence), rendered May 12, 2005, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is not entitled, pursuant to the amelioration doctrine of *People v Behlog*(74 NY2d 237 [1989]), to the benefit of the reduced penalty contained in the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738), because the Legislature has expressly stated that the provision upon which defendant relies applies only to crimes committed after its effective date *(see People v Nelson,*21 AD3d 861 [2005], *lv granted*6 NY3d 757 [2005]). Although defendant was sentenced after the effective date of the legislation, he committed the instant crime before that date. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.3****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We have issued our report dated March 6, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of BKF Capital Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of BKF Capital Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-50132, effective November 17, 2000 and 333-75014, effective December 13, 2001)./s/  Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLPNew York, New YorkMarch 6, 2008
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Amendment No. 6 to Form 10Q/A for the quarter
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C.
Section 1350), 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;
  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/ Ronald A.
DurandoRonald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer

January 11, 2011

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14668]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R1-ES-2009-N115; 10120-1113-0000-F5]


Endangered Wildlife and Plants; Permits

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of application for permit; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the 
public to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct 
certain activities with endangered species under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act), which requires that we invite public 
comment on the permit application.

DATES: We must receive your written data or comments by July 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Program Manager, Endangered Species, Ecological Services, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE., 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 
97232-4181.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Canterbury, Fish and Wildlife 
Biologist, at the above address or by telephone (503-231-2071) or fax 
(503-231-6243).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following applicant has applied for a 
scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with 
endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.). We solicit review and comment from local, State, and Federal 
agencies and the public.
    Permit No.: TE188214.
    Applicant: Richard Pender.
    The applicant requests a scientific research permit to remove and 
reduce to possession Clermontia lindseyana ('oha wai) in conjunction 
with research in the State of Hawaii, for the purpose of enhancing its 
survival.

Public Comments

    Please refer to the permit number for the application when 
submitting comments.
    We solicit public review and comment on this recovery permit 
application. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail 
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you 
should be aware that your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. 
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address.

    Dated: June 9, 2009.
David J. Wesley,
Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14668 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
#### HRH Construction LLC, Appellant, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 140]

*569Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered March 29, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and granted defendant’s cross motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate and otherwise to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action arose out of a dispute over payments allegedly due and owing under a construction management agreement (CMA) entered into between defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. (Interiors), a subsidiary of HRH Construction Corp., the assets of which were subsequently purchased by plaintiff HRH Construction LLC (HRH LLC). The CMA provided that disputes related to it were to be arbitrated. An arbitration proceeding, putatively between the MTA and Interiors, commenced, but after nine sessions, the MTA learned that HRH LLC, as a result of the asset purchase agreement and management services agreement, had taken over Interiors’ performance of the CMA and, accordingly, was the real party in interest in the arbitration. The MTA moved to join HRH LLC in the arbitration, and HRH LLC commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a permanent injunction preventing the MTA from joining HRH LLC as a party to the arbitration between Interiors and the MTA, or otherwise compelling HRH LLC to arbitrate on the basis of the CMA. HRH LLC moved for a preliminary injunction, and the MTA cross-moved to compel HRH LLC to arbitrate.

A nonsignatory to an agreement containing an arbitration clause that has knowingly received direct benefits under the agreement will be equitably estopped from avoiding the agreement’s obligation to arbitrate (see *MAG Portfolio Consultant, GMBH v Merlin Biomed Group LLC,*268 F3d 58, 61 [2d Cir 2001]). Under its asset purchase and management services agreements with Interiors’ parent company, HRH LLC undertook Interiors’ CMA obligations and derived a direct benefit, receiving over $7,000,000 for its performance of the CMA. Accordingly, since HRH LLC knowingly assumed performance of the CMA and derived a direct benefit therefrom, it is estopped from avoiding arbitration under the CMA.

Although plaintiff contends that the MTA learned as early as *570January 2002 about the asset purchase agreement pursuant to which plaintiff displaced Interiors under the CMA, and, accordingly, that defendant’s request to join it in the arbitration was untimely, this contention is premised on a letter sent to the New York City Transit Authority, not the MTA, respecting a bid on an unrelated project in Queens. The letter to the New York City Transit Authority was not sufficient notice to the MTA, a separate entity *(see Lopez v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*267 AD2d 359 [1999]), and, in any case, did not comport with the notice provisions of the CMA.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 228 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Financial Services 

in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2019 

Ms. WATERS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Financial Services in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Financial 

4 Services (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $17,410,010.00 for the One Hun9 dred Sixteenth Congress. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 228 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $8,705,005.00 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2019, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2020; and 

7 (2) not more than $8,705,005.00 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2020, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2021. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairwoman of the Committee, and approved in the man15 ner directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas 

September 1, 2020 

No. 04-20-00127-CR

Frank Henry WESCH, Jr.,

Appellant 

v. 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 17-378-CR

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding 

ORDE R

The State's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED in part. The 

State's Brief is due October 16, 2020. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of September, 2020. 

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
97-581.

#### State ex rel. Nelson v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Procedendo. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss overruled, writ granted, and the court is ordered to proceed.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents, would grant respondent’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismiss the cause.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23

- 0644 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: MATTHEW ROBERTS ,

Petitioner and Appellee, and FIDELA ROBERTS ,

Respondent and Appellant. **GRANT OF EXTENSION**
Pursuant to authority granted under M. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 15, 2024 to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 11 2023

12/11/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0644
Date. 7/12/15

KEITH B. BURKINS 95 SU4- OS Oo,

T.0.C.J-10 #1013686 ; OF
Robertson Unit

12071 F.M 3522

Abifene, T.x 79601

T.C.C.P = 12308
P.O. BOX 44H" Capital Station
Austin Tex. 78711

RE: WOO- 48256- P(B); WOO- 48257- P(B) and WOO- 48258- P(B)

DeanCLerk

I am writing you in reference to the above Listed cause No.s Inquir-
ing about the disposition of these pending application’s. it has been
well over a yearn that these appLication’s number’s has been active, but
the nemedies by this count does not comport with the fast and speedy re-
medy of the Habeas Corpus. I am very concerned about the process, beca-
use of the ongoing(15)plus yearns of incarceration. I would Like to tha-
nk you in advance for your response, time and effort.

RECEIVED IN Sénceneky. oe
"COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Hak £. Burky,
JUL 15 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Houston Progressive Radiology Associates, PLLC, Rodolfo L. 

Garcia and Brandon C. Stroh

Appellate case number: 01-14-00463-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-12279

Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County

Relators Houston Progressive Radiology Associates, PLLC, Rodolfo L. Garcia and 

Brandon C. Stroh have filed a petition for writ of mandamus directed at the district court’s order 

denying their plea in abatement and motion to dismiss the underlying lawsuit in favor of 

arbitration. Relators have also filed a parallel interlocutory appeal of that order, Houston 

Progressive Radiology Associates, PLLC, Rodolfo L. Garcia and Brandon C. Stroh v. Stephen B. 

Lee, M.D., P.A. a Texas Professional Association, Dean Paul Chauvin, Jr., M.D., P.A., a Texas 

Professional Association, and Michael Nguyen, M.D., 01-14-00467-CV. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016 (West 2011); § 171.098 (West 2011). 

Relators have filed an Emergency Motion to Stay All Trial Court Proceedings Pending 

Appellate Review of Order Denying Arbitration. The motion is GRANTED; we STAY all

proceedings in the trial court, including discovery, pending further order of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.10. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle _____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 27, 2014
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 5 1 2

E X P A R T E L A S A R O S A N D O V A L , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 4 9 , 9 1 5 - B I N T H E 1 8 1 S T D I S T R I C T C O U R T

F R O M P O T T E R C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N P u rsuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedu re , t h e cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated assault and sentenc ed to fifty y ear s’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Ap p ea ls dismiss ed his appea l. Sandoval v. State , No. 07-06-00187- CR (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, no pet.). Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appea l. We rema nded this application to the trial court and direc ted it to make finding s of fac t a nd conclusions of law and to or der trial and appellate counsel to re spond to Applicant’s cla im.2

On rema nd, the tr i al court conclude d that Applicant was denied his rig ht to a meaning ful appe al

. Although there is no response from trial counsel in the supplemental rec ord, we find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to f ile an out-of-time appea l of the judg ment of convic tion in Cause No. 49,915-B from the 181st J udicial District Court of Potter County

. Applicant is order ed returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of a ppeal so that he may

then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaning ful appea l. All time limit s shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 day s after the mandate of this Court issues.

Deliver ed: Marc h 9, 2011 Do Not Publish