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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 804 

Recognizing the leading role of Utahns in the fight for women’s suffrage 

and celebrating the sesquicentennial of the first votes by women under 

the equal suffrage law of Utah on February 14, 1870. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2020 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. STEWART, Mr. CURTIS, and Mr. 

MCADAMS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the leading role of Utahns in the fight for women’s suffrage and celebrating the sesquicentennial of the 

first votes by women under the equal suffrage law of 

Utah on February 14, 1870. 

Whereas, on February 10, 1870, the territorial legislature of 

Utah passed an Act granting women the right to vote, 

which was signed into law on February 12, 1870, by Acting Governor Stephen Mann; 

Whereas, on February 14, 1870, women voted in the Salt 

Lake City election, becoming the first women to vote 

under an equal suffrage law within what is now the 

United States; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 804 IH 

Whereas, in 1887, Congress revoked the voting rights of 

women in Utah; 

Whereas, on November 5, 1895, the new Utah Constitution 

was adopted with a provision stating, ‘‘The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall 

not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male 

and female citizens of this State shall enjoy equally all 

civil, political and religious rights and privileges.’’; 

Whereas, on November 3, 1896, Martha Maria Hughes Cannon, who will be honored by a statue in the United States 

Capitol in 2020, was elected to the Utah State Senate 

and became the first woman to serve as a State senator 

in the United States; and 

Whereas, in 1919, women’s suffrage was extended to all 

United States citizens with the adoption of the 19th 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the leading role of Utahns in the 

3 fight for women’s suffrage and the adoption of the 

4 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United 

5 States guaranteeing that the ‘‘right of citizens of the 

6 United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged 

7 by the United States or by any State on account of 

8 sex’’; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 804 IH 

1 (2) celebrates the sesquicentennial of the first 

2 votes by women under the equal suffrage law of 

3 Utah on February 14, 1870. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIVER MASCARI,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00279-CR

Appeal from

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20120D06121)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

River Mascari attempts to appeal the judgment adjudicating his guilt of burglary of a 

building. Appellant waived his right to a jury and entered a negotiated guilty plea. The trial 

court followed the plea bargain and placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community 

supervision for five years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate alleging that Appellant 

had violated terms and conditions of community supervision. Appellant entered a negotiated 

plea of true and the trial court assessed punishment in accordance with the plea agreement at 

confinement for a term of eighteen months. We dismiss the appeal because the trial court’s 

certification reflects that Appellant does not have a right to appeal. 

An appeal must be dismissed unless a trial court’s certification showing that the 

defendant has the right of appeal has been made part of the record. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). The 

trial court’s certification states that the case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO 
- 2 -

right of appeal.” We notified Appellant’s counsel that the trial court’s certification showed that 

Appellant waived his right of appeal and asked him to file a response. Counsel filed a response 

stating that Appellant does not have the right of appeal. We have reviewed the record and find 

that the record supports the trial court’s certification that Appellant does not have a right of 

appeal. Consequently, we are required to dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d); Chavez 

v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). The appeal is dismissed.

January 25, 2017

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00855-CV

Sonji McDowell, Appellant

v.

Joseph F. Valentine, Jr. and Terri Wallis, Appellees

FROM THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-PB-18-001730, THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Sonji McDowell has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. 

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 4, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50440

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS GERARDO MARTINEZ-LEYVA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-2196-3

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Gerardo Martinez-Leyva has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Martinez-Leyva has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Martinez-Leyva’s claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50440 Document: 00513118207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-50440

2

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 

841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Martinez-Leyva’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Martinez-Leyva’s motion for the 

appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

 Case: 14-50440 Document: 00513118207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
#### In the Matter of Prudential Equity Group, LLC, Appellant, v Estate of Therese Bachalani Amiouny, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 349]

Decedent had no individual accounts or business with petitioner, a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD [now called the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or FINRA]), and neither Prudential-Bache International Limited nor Prudential-Bache International Bank, European companies where decedent’s three individual numbered accounts were maintained, was a member of NASD. Thus, respondents’ claims with respect to these accounts arise out of the business of two nonmembers and, under NASD rule 10101, are not eligible for arbitration.

Further a “dispute, claim or controversy” must be arbitrated “upon the demand of the customer” provided the dispute is (1) “eligible for submission under [rule 10101],” (2) is “between a customer and a member and/or associated person,” and (3) “aris[es] in connection with the business of such member or in *438connection with the activities of such associated persons” (rule 10301 [a]). The claims with respect to the individual accounts were not between a customer and a member as the decedent had no individual customer relationship with petitioner; she dealt only with the two European companies, which were not NASD members. While the broker for the three European accounts was an “associated person” of petitioner, this was only when acting in connection with petitioner’s accounts, not in connection with the three European accounts. The trading in these European accounts came within the purview of the European regulators. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
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.
 
 
 I, Wm. Milton Cox, Chief Executive
Officer of Gulf Western Petroleum Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the three months endedMay 31, 2008(the "Report") which this statement
accompanies 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.
 
 
 Dated:  July 17,
2008
 
 
 /s/ Wm. Milton
      CoxChairman and Chief Executive
      Officer(principal executive
      officer)
Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-13-00272-CV

Trial Court No. 12-1560-B

Guy Sparkman

Vs.

Karen Phillips, Individually & in her official capacity, Stanley Springerly,

Individually & in his official capacity & Amy Gilbreath in her official

capacity as deputy civil clerk of County Court at Law #2

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Motion fee

Motion fee

Other fees

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Clerk's record

Filing

Indigent

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

$5.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$137.50

$100.00

$25.00

$50.00

Guy Sparkman

Guy Sparkman

Guy Sparkman

Guy Sparkman

David R Iglesias

Flowers Davis

Flowers Davis

Guy Sparkman

Guy Sparkman

Guy Sparkman

Guy Sparkman

TOTAL: $377.50

I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 20th day of July 2015, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
No. 20-1 For Immediate Release

February 2020

Self-Service Options Available for RRB Customers

Spend less time on hold and get what you need when you need it! There are self-serve options, 

available 24/7, for requesting information and conducting business with the Railroad Retirement Board 

(RRB). Customers can request the following documents and get the following information online by visiting 

myRRB at RRB.gov or by using the automated menus on the toll-free number (877-772-5772):

• Letters verifying income and monthly benefits rates

• Service and compensation statement

• Replacement Medicare card

• Duplicate tax statement (1099, 1099R)

• General benefit information

• RRB field office addresses

In addition, railroad employees who have established myRRB accounts can login and:

• Apply for and claim unemployment benefits

• Claim sickness benefits

• Check the status of their unemployment or sickness benefit claims

• View their railroad service and compensation history

• Get an estimate of retirement benefits

Save yourself time by listening to the introductory message on the phone and visiting the home page 

at RRB.gov! We update these messages to inform on special issues currently affecting railroad employees 

and/or beneficiaries. Today, the introductory phone message tells you:

• Cost-of-living adjustments for railroad retirement benefits in 2020

• Tax statements will be mailed out by January 31, 2020

• Duplicate tax statements requests won’t be accepted until February 15, 2020

# # #

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

RRB News

844 North Rush Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

www.rrb.gov

877-772-5772 general information

Public Affairs

312-751-4777 

opa@rrb.gov media inquiries
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51062

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDDIE HEMPHILL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-144-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Hemphill, Jr., appeals the above-guidelines, 60-month sentence 

imposed for his escape conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). He contends that 

his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to 

satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly the need to protect the 

public and deter future crimes.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51062 Document: 00513124112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2015
No. 14-51062

2

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of 

discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). A sentence outside 

the Guidelines “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors 

where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant 

weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) 

represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” 

United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).

When imposing the upward variance, the district court considered 

Hemphill’s extensive and violent criminal history, as well as the seriousness 

and particular circumstances of the instant offense. See id. at 709. Hemphill’s 

disagreement with the district court’s assessment of these factors is not 

sufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Given the 

deference that is due a district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, 

see id., and the district court’s legitimate reasons for its sentencing decision, 

Hemphill has not demonstrated that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable, see Smith, 440 F.3d at 710.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51062 Document: 00513124112 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

July 22, 2015 Session

BARBARA A. MILLER v. MYRON B. MCCLARY, II

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County

No. L13037 David Reed Duggan, Judge

No. E2015-01027-COA-R3-CV – Filed July 22, 2015

The final order from which the pro se appellant seeks to appeal was entered on April 20, 

2015. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until May 22, 2015, more than thirty (30) days 

from the date of entry of the final order. The appellees have filed a joint motion to dismiss 

this appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the Notice of 

Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the 

motion to dismiss. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., C.J., AND THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.

Myron B. McClary, II, Knoxville, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.

John K. King, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Barbara A. Miller.

Jerry M. Martin, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Allstate Insurance Company.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1

 

1Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides as follows:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may 

affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum 

opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a 

case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated 

AMEMORANDUM OPINION,@ shall not be published, and shall not be 

cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.

A notice of appeal must Abe filed with and received by the clerk of the trial court 

within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from.@ Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). 

AThe thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in civil 

cases.@ Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004). The appellant has filed no 

response to the appellees= motion to dismiss and the Trial Court Clerk has confirmed that the 

date of entry of the final order was April 20, 2015. 

Because the Notice of Appeal in this case was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal. The motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed. Costs on 

appeal are taxed to the appellant, for which execution may issue if necessary. 

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Stanley, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 26, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Philip O. Nolan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Brian J. Clark, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)             The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)             The informationcontained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ PHILIP O. NOLAN                                             |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Philip O. Nolan                                                 |   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
| August 4, 2009                                                  |   |
|                                                            |   |
|                                                            |   |
| /s/ BRIAN J. CLARK                                              |   |
| Brian J. Clark                                                  |   |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
| August 4, 2009                                                  |   |

 

----
| (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/  John      H. Short |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   | John      H. Short                |
|   | President      and                |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer      |
|   | RehabCare      Group, Inc.        |
|   | March      11, 2008               |
Cause No. 01-15-00146-CV

___________________________________ 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

___________________________________ 

ALL AMERICAN RIGGING COMPANY,INC.

Appellant

v.

EDWARD D. DYSARZ 

Appellee 

___________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 61st District Court of Harris County, Texas 

Cause No. 2012-48784 

___________________________________ 

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW, Appellant All American Rigging Company, Inc., and 

pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a) (1), files this Motion for Voluntary Dismissal 

of Appeal and in support thereof, would respectfully show as follows: 

1. Appellant, All American Rigging, and Appellee, Edward D. Dysarz, 

have agreed to a settlement of the underlying matter. All American Rigging and 

Dysarz are the only parties to this appeal. 

2. In light of this settlement, All American no longer desires to prosecute 

this appeal. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00146-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/22/2015 5:59:35 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/22/2015 5:59:35 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant All American 

Rigging Company, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order 

dismissing the Appeal.

` Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Douglas Pritchett, Jr.

Douglas Pritchett, Jr.

Texas Bar No. 24007877

JOHNSON, TRENT, WEST & TAYLOR, L.L.P.

919 Milam Street, Suite 1700

(713) 222-2323 (Telephone)

(713) 222-2226 (Facsimile)

dpritchett@johnsontrent.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ALL AMERICAN RIGGING CO.,INC.
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On this the 22nd day of July 2015, the foregoing Unopposed Motion for 

Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal was served on the following persons by electronic 

service:

D. John Neese, Jr.

HAWASH, MEADE, GASTON, NEESE & CICACK, LLP

2118 Smith Street

Houston, Texas 77002

jneese@hmgnc.com

Andrew B. Totz

Totz Ellison & Totz, P.C.

2211 Norfolk Street, Suite 510

Houston, Texas 77098

atotz@tetlegal.com

/s/ Douglas Pritchett, Jr.

Douglas Pritchett, Jr.

453679.1-07222015
3&/-/.T

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 02-13-00380-CR OFFENSE:

Adrian Lee Whitemon v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Tarrant

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 432nd District Court

DATE: 03/05/2015 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1209550D

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Adrian Lee Whitemon v. The State

STYLE: of Texas

APPfLLAfrT-^ Petition

CCA#: 33/ -/r

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

g^frftKk

DATE:

JUDGE:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD