alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00163-CR

JOSE ANTONIO PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-71985-U

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### CZUPRYNSKI v. SHENANGO FURNACE CO.

Civil Action No. 974.

District Court, W. D. New York.

July 9, 1942.

Desmond & Drury, of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Duncan, Leclcie, McCreary, Schlitz & Hinslea, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Stanley & Otten, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Arthur E. Otten, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This is a motion for an order requiring the testimony of an employee of the defendant to be taken by deposition upon oral examination; requiring such employee to attend and be examined “at a time when said vessel (defendant’s) arrives at the port of Buffalo during the course of the navigation season; and for a further order requiring defendant herein to give due notice of such arrival and to compel the attendance of such witness.”

It seems quite obvious that this court has no authority to grant this order. First: The defendant can not be required to produce its employee as a witness. Second: Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following *413section 723c, states when deposition may be taken and Rule 30, the circumstances under which such deposition may be taken. These provisions are not met. Further, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff herein to procure the attendance of a witness for examination, and such attendance may be compelled as provided by Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Issue has been joined, and application to the Court is not necessary. There is no authority to require the witness’ attendance save through subpoena.

Motion denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sidney Sass, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 44]

The court properly denied defendant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant’s claim that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the plea was contradicted by his allocution, in which he expressly disclaimed any such influence, and by the court’s own recollection of defendant’s demeanor and responses (see *People v Bess,*299 AD2d 263 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 580 [2003]; *People v Clarke,*251 AD2d 7 [1998]). Concur-Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Bandag, Incorporated

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


         The Company has the following subsidiaries including significant
subsidiaries as defined in Regulation S-X, each incorporated in the jurisdiction
stated opposite its name. All of the following subsidiaries are 100% owned by
the Company. The Company has additional subsidiaries, which, if considered in
the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant
subsidiary" as such term is defined in Regulation S-X.

Name of Subsidiary                                 Jurisdiction of Incorporation
------------------                                 -----------------------------

Bandag A.G. .......................................................Switzerland
Bandag Canada Ltd. .....................................................Canada
Bandag Europe N.V. ....................................................Belgium
Bandag Licensing Corporation.  ...........................................Iowa
Bandag Incorporated of S.A. (Proprietary) Limited ................South Africa
Bandag do Brasil Ltda ..................................................Brazil
Bandag B.V. .......................................................Netherlands
Bandag de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. .........................................Mexico
BTC, Inc. ............................................................Delaware
Quality Design Systems, Inc...............................................Iowa
Tire Distribution Systems, Inc. ......................................Delaware
Tire Management Solutions, Inc. ..........................................Iowa


                                      -61-
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 626 

Recognizing the 160th anniversary of the peaceful resolution of the Pig 

War crisis. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11, 2019 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington (for himself, Mr. HECK, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. KILMER, Ms. JAYAPAL, and Mr. NEWHOUSE) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 160th anniversary of the peaceful resolution 

of the Pig War crisis. 

Whereas for more than 40 years, Great Britain and the 

United States contended over the Oregon Country, which 

today comprises Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as well 

as portions of Montana and Wyoming and the province 

of British Columbia; 

Whereas, on June 15, 1846, the two nations agreed upon the 

49th parallel as the international boundary, but could not 

agree on a water boundary between Vancouver Island 

and the mainland, where the San Juan Islands lie; 

Whereas tensions over possession of the islands escalated to 

crisis proportions on San Juan Island when on June 15, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 626 IH 

1859, a United States farmer shot and killed a pig belonging to the Hudson’s Bay Company, prompting dispatch of naval and military forces from both nations to 

the island’s southern shore; 

Whereas the crisis was resolved peacefully through a combination of restraint and diplomacy when United States 

Army Commander Lieutenant General Winfield Scott arrived from Washington, DC, to negotiate a standdown 

with British Columbia Governor James Douglas; 

Whereas the ensuing 12-year, peaceful joint military occupation of San Juan Island challenged United States soldiers 

and British Royal Marines to cope with the difficulty of 

1860s military life in an isolated environment, yet formed 

a lasting friendship between the two garrisons; 

Whereas, in 1872, the boundary question was settled in favor 

of the United States through arbitration by Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany, which brought a lasting peace on the 

49th parallel between Great Britain, Canada, and the 

United States; 

Whereas San Juan Island National Historical Park was created in 1966 to commemorate the peaceful settlement of 

the Pig War crisis and celebrate the idea that individuals 

and nations can resolve their differences peacefully without resorting to violence; and 

Whereas diplomats and members of the military from the 

United States and the United Kingdom continue to serve 

their countries side by side in remote regions of the 

world: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 the 160th anniversary of the peaceful resolution of the Pig 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 626 IH 

1 War crisis and applauds the close ties and lasting friend2 ship between the United Kingdom and the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 564 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 42
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 564

                          [Report No. 116-212]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4378) making continuing 
      appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 2019

   Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4378) making continuing 
      appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4378) making continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes. All points 
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 
bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                                  House Calendar No. 42

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 564

                          [Report No. 116-212]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4378) making continuing 
      appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 19, 2019

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10287 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FRANKLIN GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-15-1
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Franklin Garcia appeals the 24-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred by considering rehabilitation in determining his sentence. He also argues that the district court failed to explain why the sentence chosen was n e cessary to promote rehabilitation. The Government

m ov es for summary affirmance, asserting that Garcia’s arguments are U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 7, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10287 Document: 00511657183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2011No. 11-10287

foreclosed. In the alternative, the Government seeks an extension of time to file an appellate brief. Garcia’s first argument, that th e district court erred by considering rehabilitation, i s b a s e d on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011)

. However, as the Government correctly p o ints out, we have held that the limitations on the consider ati o n o f rehabilitation at issue in Tapia do not apply in a revocation pr o c e e di n g . See United States v. Breland, 647 F.3d 284, 287-90 (5th Cir. 2011). Therefore, this argument is foreclosed. However, because Garcia’s appellate brief raises a second argument that is not foreclosed, the Government’s motion for summary affirma n ce is denied. As we see no need for further briefing, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is denied as unnecessary. Although Garcia generally objected to the reasonableness of the sentence,
we conclude that he failed to preserve his specific ar gument that the district court failed to adequately explain why the sentence im p osed would promote rehabilitation. See United States v. Neal , 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, we review for plain error. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 ( 2 0 0 9). However, we conclude that any error in failing to
a dequately explain the reasons for the sentence does not warrant relief u n d e r plain error review because Garcia cannot show prejudice. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 261-65 (5th Cir. 2 009). AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

2 Case: 11-10287 Document: 00511657183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2011
^MpnmOAMa. RECF1VED IN

M^jm^M^ !v Ii <•• DC7... „r,nMklAI couBTOFCRIMINALAPPEM QR1G1M ALGWRT^7^5APPEALS

ftp. 6oU&3fl6

J in

pMss TUJ^-gM-cJo^ Y^AiiQ miidi lin^s cover te44E^ (\ie(0 Qritlml

Jttilm-Fer Pi5cr^oAfc!Hy_j^£vi£V4 A^rf ^leYau Cil) Ctfi€& AkW <y£ Z-^pys,

-1^-fo.o.t, L%5&$g W€C&-filM—m^J26f>X-j£^(:SSA)aL. L flAJ-^o r&/i <M &6M&-QMA

_7T> dap*-, Vo-ur h£lp-khk\_<Lfitisi&e.c£^:L6M <-s /to^reri^-fccl-,-xA/HAK you,

FILED IN

COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 10 2015 J^£S£&ci^\l^T

Abel Acosta, Clerk QjQte

b. P> \fAuDweif

.yLitelUiA-Pr* ^k.

1&&UU5-

£ fcM££VJ

.^aAAcai^-ZS. 773Q3 -76-^D-
\ k\dW Or LoiktfrAi>f-j

ME 4»9

^f,\eueu^6r nr6C£Aurfi\ V\lsW>

(\uesriov*s fve.S€AQT£J £* Resign

3. \fci4 $eu4-osc£. kj^L.

_L2L

H&rlTi<bk&M

JjzAitLcAh 0$ Service

Jjto&ei Qt Auihoriri&s
No. OZAQ-/5

TEm The

Au a///j Texa-s

Q.OAf^Q,JCEfeL

J^L

5^-W Of TW

jk^peAL:

FroM App^-a\ UP,ol-|3-orwflq> -C,R

HAW? Louifk,

JLdfiatyk Of Pm4ies

3udq^ fyjlnEtt Guerrero

3 /7M AW/r/W Ourf

Mfrrk Lipfcn, /Ally^^ffie^

T^iaI CflUMSfcl

/Arris Couigfy 5555JWrid Or, Sk, y/o

TV'4 3uLcJtQ£ 3s r>r> r7<ry/75 &r KUmla €.r

£ml?>C>Z'-c)WS

HouTs^mA, l_Ejy^_

__Li&gm AmWsoft-^ DtWWcf A44orm€y caQJArm'y Pao/A

:orN£>i_0^ /\pp<Lt\\

(fX CL Va v& Duesjj^ QhMJf^£Al-Pir^ ^

Aoj^_-M/-SL^O-^kk l_^ft£^hJ^J^ddii-S-Jiiri'OM For

riii^ -s ^r^£AJuKuk—M
Mw /lad ffrMtrrgs,

<S4-AhiA€i*/- <yP~fhe Cas*

hpoelUxsk tttA5 Arrested w -f4/fta>y DnvikKj NNhy'fe Tm^'g^ yMrrAMrf QM> ({uoi^^

mi t>f £pM w

£j}/iAhbe£A/-Ed>r'z , LfudW-y jMeA uuutfvus f>re4ri»l Maftov^AuA Sttrlh SgfrfriW

rpJjef. kpptLlihuh' \ma.s 3^-h^t^A /n 3Qy^Ar5 ea&%lMMm4- An^ AppeAled(,

flfpell/tut pK>ce&J64 w i\ppefi\ 'Pro §£,

jf^Mmf 6fPr6^durA\ rft'st-ory

I. XAqwsHrV AtfirMfA ou Qchbtr 3Q, LQIH,

£. Mnfinu for feh&lr, tic-filed o^ Mov&/uJ,er /% Zd/4.

C^ttfi.sh'ous Xrf&eid'&A for He,n'iJ£^L

LJoff

f \OMQ-

\p\j cSW'-ff^ ^*Vgr wA/c/? pm^^tw/fa/4 /}s 4rJ^Li\j Ix hnseA.

Carpus htrtrikiC,

^ Ckihfofe »Jtcl -tW dfc£

j-r\ r\<=.4J^ -fh^ ^Arr^.cf \MAY^'\ur» gvf SJ-feVuWs dpplioAV>W. u\, 4W nrflflfifllknri,

^ . 5p*r<U l^iA - 4»4 ^J4k>(WV c^stskuHy Assert* I^U right* 4n ygaJy

^TT\ M I
#### Romeo HERNANDEZ PAHATI; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75539.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

*688Jeremiah Johnson, Esq., Reeves *&*Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lead petitioner, Romeo Hernandez Pahati, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the harassment Pahati suffered does not amount to persecution. *See Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that alien who had received numerous death threats but was never closely confronted had not suffered past persecution).

Similarly, the record does not compel the conclusion that Pahati has a well-founded fear of persecution due to his political activity in support of former President Ferdinand Marcos given that there has been a change of government in the Philippines and that Pahati returned to the Philippines for almost a year without incident. *See Belayneh v. INS,*213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir.2000) (no well-founded fear of persecution where there had been changes in government and where petitioner returned to her country of origin without incident).

We lack jurisdiction to review Pahati’s claims for withholding of removal and protection under CAT because he failed to raise them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7085

CONRAD BURKE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHRIS WEBB; MAJOR ESPINOZA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00342-jlk)

Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 18, 2007

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Conrad Burke, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Conrad Burke appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Burke v. Webb, No.

7:07-cv-00342-jlk (W.D. Va. July 19, 2007). We deny Burke’s motion

for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RASHAWN LAMAR DAWKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00489-REP-1; 3:08-cv-00543-REP)

Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rashawn Lamar Dawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, 

Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rashawn Lamar Dawkins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion and his motion for reconsideration. These

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Dawkins has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We grant Dawkins’ motion to supplement his informal 

brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
H. Res. 596 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 26, 2019. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR: Mr. Murphy of 

North Carolina. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Timmons. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. Bishop of 

North Carolina. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: 

Mr. Murphy of North Carolina. 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Bishop of North 

Carolina. 

Attest: 

Clerk.