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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 55

  Recognizing Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, for 200 years of 
                    leadership in higher education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2019

Mr. Guthrie (for himself, Mr. Barr, Mr. Comer, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Massie, 
 and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky) submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, for 200 years of 
                    leadership in higher education.

Whereas Centre College was conceived by a group of visionary Americans, 
        including Isaac Shelby, a Revolutionary War hero and the first Governor 
        of Kentucky; Ephraim McDowell, one of the fathers of modern surgery; and 
        James Birney, a prominent abolitionist and two-time Presidential 
        candidate;
Whereas the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky granted a charter 
        to Centre College in 1819;
Whereas Centre College, which opened in one building housing two professors and 
        five students, has grown to more than 1,400 students and 140 professors 
        on a historic campus;
Whereas Centre College has graduated two Vice Presidents of the United States, a 
        Chief Justice and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, 13 United 
        States Senators, 44 United States Representatives, 11 Governors, and 
        many more elected and appointed leaders at the national, State and local 
        levels;
Whereas Centre College today is recognized by leaders in academia and by 
        national rankings as one of the leading liberal arts colleges in the 
        United States;
Whereas Centre College offers more than 50 majors, minors, preprofessional, and 
        dual-degree programs;
Whereas Centre College is a national leader in study abroad experiences, with 85 
        percent of students studying abroad at least once;
Whereas the Centre College Colonels have 23 varsity athletic teams that 
        participate in the Southern Athletic Association in Division III of the 
        NCAA; and
Whereas, for 200 years, Centre College has provided an exceptional liberal arts 
        education with a proven track record for preparing students for lives of 
        learning, leadership, and service: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes Centre College for 200 years of service as 
        an institution of higher education; and
            (2) commends Centre College for its leadership and service 
        to students, Kentucky, and the world.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 121 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14983]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--iRobot Corporation

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 15, 2009, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), iRobot Corporation (``iRobot'') 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities 
of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: iRobot, Bedford, MA; Georgia Tech Research 
Corporation, Atlanta, GA; Lockheed Martin Advanced Technologies 
Laboratories, Cherry Hill, NJ; the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, Cambridge, MA; Sarnoff Corporation, Princeton, NJ; The 
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, 
CA; and The Regents of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 
The general area of iRobot's planned activity is to engage in 
cooperative research and development in the area of robotic perception, 
intelligence, human-robot interaction, and dexterous manipulation and 
unique mobility.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-14983 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### NUMBER 13
- 20
- 00370
- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF R.J.V.R., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria , and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 25, 2020, attempting to appeal an
order of termination of appellant’s parental rights entered on July 14, 2020 . On August
25, 2020 and September 29, 2020, the clerk of this court informed appellant the notice of
appeal was not timely filed . The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that
steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 37.1,
42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within fifteen days from
the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2 Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice. Subsequently, o n October 15, 2020, this
Court abated the appeal for a determination of whether appellant had abandoned the
appeal. The trial court appointed new appellate counsel and this Court notified the newly
appointed counsel of the defect in the notice of appeal an d advised counsel that, if the
defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, the appeal
would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant’s counsel has responded, informing this Court that the defect cannot be

cured. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s inability
correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a),(c).

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Delivered and filed the 17th day of December, 2020.
GEORGE W. VIE III

PARTNER

gvie@millsshirley.com

Direct Dial (409) 761-4032 or

(713) 571-4232

July 14, 2015

Re: Case No. 01-15-00596-CV; Joseph Elmer Baca v. Pedro Sanchez Jr. 

Individually and d/b/a Point 2 Point Towing– In the First Court of Appeals, 

Houston, Texas;

 Trial Court Case No. 2014-48289

 

Christopher A. Prine

Clerk, First Court of Appeals

Harris County 1910 Courthouse

301 Fannin, Suite 208

Houston, TX 77002-2066 

Dear Mr. Prine:

Pursuant to Rule 6.1(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this letter 

is notice of my appearance as lead counsel representing Appellee Pedro Sanchez Jr. 

Individually and d/b/a Point 2 Point Towing. Please note my representation as 

lead attorney on the Court’s docket.

By copy of this letter, Appellant’s counsel is notified of my appearance.

 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00596-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/14/2015 11:38:40 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/14/2015 11:38:40 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Page 2

Letter to Clerk, First Court of Appeals

July 14, 2015

Mills Shirley L.L.P.

By: /s/ George W. Vie III

State Bar No. 20579310

2228 Mechanic Street, Suite 400

Galveston, Texas 77550

Tel: 713.571.4232

Fax: 713.893.6095

gvie@millsshirley.com

cc:

Via e-service:

Jack Todd Ivey

Ivey Law Firm, P.C.

11111 Katy Freeway, Suite 580

Houston, Texas 77079

jti@iveylawfirm.com

Wade Williams

Lewis & Williams, L.L.P.

1014 Hercules Avenue

Houston, Texas 77058

wwilliams@lewisandwilliams.com

4815-8001-8725, v. 1
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2022

- 3347

_____________________________
T REMAYNE F RAZIER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

.

June 19, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , W INOKUR , and L ONG , JJ.
, concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 David Maldonado, J.D., The Maldonado Law Firm, P.A., Lakeland
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel. Gene Therapy for Metabolic Disorders.                    

*Date:*                         July 10, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter Zelazowski, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rm. 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510. 301-435-6902.                         *peter.zelazowski@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 11, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-14500 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
@conference{11756,
  author = {Adriaan Carter and Solomon Woods and Stephen Carr and Timothy Jung and Raju Datla},
  title = {Absolute Cryogenic Radiometer and Solid State Trap Detectors for IR Power Scales Down to 1 pW with 0.1% Uncertainty},
  year = {2009},
  number = {46},
  month = {2009-06-02},
  publisher = {NEWRAD 2008, Daejon, KR},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=900204},
  language = {en},
}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1275

In Re: PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,

Petitioner.

No. 07-1291

In Re: PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus.

(8:05-mc-00484; 1:06-cv-03444-CCB)

Submitted: August 17, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit

Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick J. Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated mandamus petitions, Patrick J.

Muhammad requests that this court issue two orders directing the

United States District Court for the District of Maryland to act.

First, Muhammad asks that this court order the district court to

vacate its order disbarring Muhammad from the practice of law

before that court (No. 07-1275). Muhammad further asks this court

to order the district court to enjoin the Maryland Court of Appeals

from enforcing its order disbarring Muhammad from the practice of

law in Maryland (No. 07-1291). Because we conclude that Muhammad

is not entitled to mandamus relief, we deny both petitions. 

This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus

relief against state officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of

Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), or to review

state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Thus, to the extent that the

relief Muhammad seeks would require us to review the Maryland Court

of Appeals’ disbarment order, relief is not available by way of

mandamus. 

We also deny Muhammad’s request for an order directing

the district court to vacate its order of disbarment. Mandamus

relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to

the relief sought and no other means to seek the requested relief.

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
- 3 -

1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist.

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826

(4th Cir. 1987). Muhammad has not established he is entitled to

the relief sought, as he fails to establish the requisite

extraordinary circumstances or clear entitlement to relief.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus. We further

deny as moot the pending motions to expedite adjudication of these

petitions and for an emergency stay of enforcement of the district

court’s order of disbarment. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0135

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JESSIE AARON SCHULZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss 

the appeal and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s appeal in the above 

matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2020

05/20/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0135
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neville Gallimore, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 887]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J), dated November 30, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
at Feu FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
Wi

JANGABITOL STATION; AUS: FEX/AS 789, F}OSTAGE )) PITNEY BOWES
ors OF TEXAS = ——_—s
PENALTY FOR
PRIVATE USE f zp 78701 § Q00.27°
: 0001401623 JUN 25. 2015
6/24/2015
GRIGGS, EDGAR T WR-83,365-01

On this day the Application for ‘writ fo) habeas corpus has been dismissed without ;
written order; (Ex Parte Ybarra, 149,SW W3B2147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)); Ex Parte

Florence, 319 S.W. 3d 695 (Tex. CrimTMApp: 2010). \
Abel Acosta, Clerk’

AD EDGAR GRIGGS
OW TELFORD UNIT - TDC # 1771618
3899 STATE HWY 98 UTF
NEW.BOSTON, TX 75570

Nap 7ES eo Myadaeesten tA Nears gflfooflltaoforfotetff
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 2, 2018

No. 04-17-00335-CR

Josiah David LEWIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR9616

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on January 2, 2018. The appellant’s 

first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to 

February 1, 2018. On February 1, 2018, the appellant filed a motion requesting an additional 

extension of time to file the brief until March 2, 2018, for a total extension of almost sixty days. 

The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE 

APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED. The Appellant’s brief must be filed by March 2, 2018.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of February, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Devine *v.*The Tiverton.1

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

June 11, 1888.)

Admiralty—Practice—Trial—jSTon-Production or Evidence.

Claimant laying stress upon the presumption arising from the fact that the hatch-cover, which libelant asserted had broken under his weight, and which the proofs showed was in his possession, had not been produced on the trial, it was *held,*that the case should be kept open, with liberty to libelant to produce in court the hatch-cover in question, and with liberty to both sides to take further evidence regarding the same.

In Admiralty.

*Noah Tebbetts,*for libelant.

*530*Butler, Stillman & Hubbard,*for claimant.

1

Reported by Edward G-. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

On reading the briefs presented in-this case, I observe that great stress is laid by the claimant upon the non-production by the libelant of the hatch-cover, which the libelant asserts broke under his weight, and which the proofs siiow to be in his custody, or under his control. If my recollection serves me, the production of the hatch-cover was tendered by the libelant at the trial; and it seems to me more conducive to justice to have it produced, instead of leaving the case to be ■decided dpon the assertion of the libelant that the hatch-cover broke under his weight, on the one hand, and the presumption that if produced it would show the contrary, on the other. This case is held open, with leave to the libelant to produce the hatch-cover in question, and with liberty to both sides to present any evidence regarding the same as they may be advised.
#### Adwoa Gyabaah, Respondent, v Rivlab Transportation Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant. Jeffrey A. Aronsky, P.C., Nonparty Respondent.

Submitted June 24, 2013;

decided August 27, 2013

Motion to vacate this Court’s June 5, 2013 dismissal order granted *[see 21*NY3d 1001 (2013)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
No. 07-13-00138-CR

Robert Bara

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

 of Tarrant County

July 17, 2015

Opinion by Justice Hancock

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 17, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
@article{1208841,
  author = {Michael Ngai and Eugene Yujun Fu and Wai Cheong Tam and Grace Ngai and Amber Yang},
  title = {Finding the Signal from the Smoke: A Real-Time, Unattended Fire Prevention System Using 3D Convolutional Neural Networks},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-08-31 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Student Research},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935388},
  language = {en},
}
@misc{1210751,
  author = {Andrew K. Persily and Marylia Duarte Batista and William M. Healy and Mark A. Kedzierski and Lingnan Lin and Natascha S. Milesi-Ferretti and Tania Ullah and David A. Yashar and Stephen Zimmerman},
  title = {November 2022 NIST Premise Plumbing Research Workshop: Summary and Findings},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-28 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956148},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2256},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1211166,
  author = {Megan Holtz and Andrew Herzing and Brian Gorman},
  title = {Scanning Nanobeam Electron Diffraction for Atom Probe Tomography},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-22 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Microscopy and Microanalysis},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936601},
  language = {en},
}
@article{102321,
  author = {Derek Patton and Kirt Page and Chang Xu and Kirsten Genson and Michael Fasolka and Kathryn Beers},
  title = {Measurement of Reactivity Ratios in Surface-Initiated Copolymerization},
  year = {2007},
  number = {40},
  month = {2007-08-21},
  publisher = {Macromolecules},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=852752},
  language = {en},
}
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000128

26-JUN-2018

01:41 PM
#### Armando NAVARRO-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70345.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed Nov. 8, 2006.

James Robert Patterson, Esq., Law Office of Lilia S. Velasquez, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Donald E. Keener, Esq., Francis W. Fraser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civ*801il Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER

MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-eused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.