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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 678 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 678

   Commending the performance of the Special Operations Forces and a 
military working dog in the eradication of the terrorist leader of the 
                    Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2019

Mr. Estes submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Commending the performance of the Special Operations Forces and a 
military working dog in the eradication of the terrorist leader of the 
                    Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Whereas, on October 26, 2019, members of the Special Operations Forces 
        successfully raided the compound of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi;
Whereas al-Baghdadi founded the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, one of the most 
        depraved terrorist enemies of the United States;
Whereas a military working dog, assisted members of the Armed Forces in Syria's 
        Idlib Province;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces, assisted by the military working dog, 
        located al-Baghdadi as he hid in a tunnel wearing a suicide vest;
Whereas al-Baghdadi detonated his vest, killing himself and injuring the 
        military working dog who was injured by exposed, live electrical cables 
        in the tunnel;
Whereas the military working dog swiftly returned to duty;
Whereas the Armed Forces officially began using military working dogs in 1942;
Whereas the most famous dog of World War II, Chips, received the Silver Star and 
        Purple Heart for capturing a machine gun nest during the invasion of 
        Sicily; and
Whereas the role of military working dogs grew more valuable throughout the 
        Korean War and the Vietnam War and remains an instrumental component of 
        the military: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the immeasurable value of military working 
        dogs;
            (2) honors the military working dog assigned to the raid of 
        Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for assisting in the elimination of an 
        enemy of the United States from the world; and
            (3) honors and celebrates the actions of the Special 
        Operations Forces of the United States on October 26, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
1 

DENY and Opinion Filed February 13, 2020 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00177-CV 

IN RE JULES DYLAN STUER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-05507 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Before the Court is relator’s February 10, 2020 petition for writ of mandamus. Entitlement 

to mandamus relief requires relators to show both that the trial court has clearly abused its 

discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 

124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition, and noting relator has 

failed to provide us with any mandamus record, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled 

to the relief requested. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought). 

200177F.P05 

/Amanda L. Reichek/ 

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. KWAN YONG CHOI,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 10376
D.C. No. 1:10

- cr - 00206

- AWI

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2015 **
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Kwan Yong Choi appeals from the distric t court ’s judgment and challenges

the 3 6

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction s for money laundering and aiding and abetting , in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a) (1) and 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 10376

Choi contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the extent of its downward departure under U.S.S.G § 5K2.23 . We

r eview for plain error , see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 6 08 F.3d 1103 ,
1 1 08 (9th Cir. 201 0) , and find none. The record, taken as a whole, reflects that the district judge “considered the parties’ arguments and [ had ] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).

Choi further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light

of the alleged procedural error and his having already been punished for the underlying criminal con duct in South Korea . The district court did not abuse its

discre tion in imposing Choi ’s sentence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a ) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumst ances, including C hoi’s criminal history in Korea and the substantial financial and emotional impact of his

crime on the victims

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLNML00000 L16100000.DP0000]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.

# ACTION:

Correction to Notice of Intent.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains corrections to the Notice of Intent published in the                         **Federal Register**                         [73 FR No. 240, pages 75764-75765] on Friday, December 12, 2008, under the                         **DATES**                         and                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                        .                    

# DATES:

The heading, the 30-day public scoping period to identify relevant issues has been extended to February 23, 2009.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The heading for the legal description for T. 17 S., R. 12 W. should read:

## New Mexico Principal Meridian

T. 17 S., R. 12 W., 

Secs 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 31.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jennifer Montoya, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, at the Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico; telephone (575) 525-4316; or e-mail at                         *Jennifer_Montoya@nm.blm.gov*.                    

Leticia Lister,

Acting District Manager.

[FR Doc. E9-1600 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-VC-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivan Rivera, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, Jr., J.), rendered on or about April 9, 2012, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6313

ARTHUR WOODSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

M. WRIGHT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:12-cv-01019-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 petition 

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 

Woodson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Woodson’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for a 

certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,894-01
EX P ARTE WILL IE JAMES DAVIS, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1445782-A IN THE 248 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the 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). Ap p l i cant was convicted of possession of methlenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) in an amount of less than one g ram, and was sentenc ed to nine months in st ate jail. Hedid not appeal his convic tion. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and that his conviction violates due proce ss beca use the evidenc e in his case was tested and found not to contain any MDMA, even though the lab test shows that the evide nce c ontained methamphe tamine, a diff ere nt controlled substance
.2

The pa rties have enter ed agree d finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, a nd the trial cour

t has deter mined that Applicant’s decision to plead guilty in this case was not a voluntary and intelligent choice
. Applicant is entitled to relief
. Ex parte Mable , 443 S.W .3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Relief is grante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 144578201010 in the 248 District Court of t h Har ris County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County to answe r t he charg es as set out in the i ndictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench
war rant within 10 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Dep a r tm e nt o f Crim in a l Ju s tic e–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 3, 2016 Do not publish
{00367178;v1}

STERNS & WEINROTH, P.C.

50 West State Street 

Suite 1400 P.O. Box 1298

Trenton, New Jersey 08607-1298

(609) 392-2100

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Coach, Inc.

and Coach Services, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

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

:

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-06269

(SRC)(MAS)

COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MEADOWLANDS MARKET PLACE, INC. d/b/a 

NEW MEADOWLANDS FLEA MARKET, 

ROBERT KAYE, MING YUEN, HANIN TEMEH, 

ELAINE M. LEVY, XIAOMIN ZHOU, ANNA 

KOZAK, JAIN FENG LIU, ZHELIANG ZHANG, 

ENID F. MORRIS, ZHENLIANG HAUNG, 

ZHEMIN ZHANG and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

DOCUMENT FILED 

ELECTRONICALLY

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

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

TO: Clerk, United States District Court

M.L. King, Jr. Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, NJ 07102

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance on behalf of 

Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. and requests that all E-Filing Notices in this case 

be e-mailed to cshaw@sternslaw.com.

STERNS & WEINROTH, P.C.

By: /s/ Christine Shaw 

cshaw@sternslaw.com

Dated: December 9, 2010

Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 5 Filed 12/09/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 87
#### Reineman *et al. v.*Ball *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

February 14, 1888.)

Removal of Causes—Separable Controversy.

In an action to set aside a general assignment, each of the plaintiffs being a separate judgment creditor of the assignors, where no issue is raised as to the judgments, and the only facts controverted being those tending to impeach the *bonafides*or validity of the assignment, and the preferences created by it, and the only issue being whether or not the assignment was fraudulent, no *693such separable controversy is presented as to authorize a removal of the action on the ground of the diversity of citizenship, some of the plaintiffs being residents of the same state as the defendant.

On Petition to Remand.

Action brought by Samuel Reinoman and others against Michael Ball and others to set aside a general assignment.

*Franklin Bien,*for plaintiffs.

*Baker & Schwartz,*for defendants.

Lacombe, J.

This action was begun in the state court on April 27, 1886, by four of the plaintiffs against the defendants, all parties being citizens and residents of New York. Subsequently, the summons and complaint were amended by bringing in two additional plaintiffs, citizens and residents of Massachusetts.' These latter thereupon removed the cause into this court, but without entering here the copy of the record required by the removal act. Defendants have, therefore, themselves entered the record, and now move to remand, in accordance with the rules and practice of this circuit. *Anderson*v. *Appleton,*32 Fed. Rep. 855.

The action is brought to sot aside, as fraudulent, a general assignment made by the defendants, Ball & Levy, to Julius Altman. Each of the plaintiff's is a separate judgment creditor of the defendants, Ball & Levy. Executions have been issued oil their several judgments, and returned unsatisfied. No issue,is raised as to these judgments, the defendants only controverting such facts as tend to show that the assignment was fraudulent or invalid, or that the preferences it contains are fictitious; and the only controversy involved in the case is the question whether that assignment was fraudulent. This is not a separable controversy, within the later decisions. See *Anderson*v. *Appleton,*32 Fed. Rep. 855, and cases there cited. Inasmuch, therefore, as citizens of this state are found on Loth sides of that controversy, the cause must he remanded.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. William H. Walls

v. : Crim. No. 10-cr-876

TERIEK EDWARDS ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Rodney C. Villazor, Assistant U.S.

Attorney, appearing), and defendant Teriek Edwards (Chester

Keller, Esq., appearing), for an order granting a continuance of

the proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and the defendant

being aware that he has the right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), three continuances having

previously been entered by this Court, and as the defendant has

consented to a second continuance, and for good and sufficient

cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

(1) The charges in this case involves numerous

witnesses that defense counsel requires adequate time to review

and prepare for;
preparation in this matter;

(3) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render any grand jury

proceedings and any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary;

(4) As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to Title

18, United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice

served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on thi,1 day of October, 2011,

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued

from October 24, 2011 through January 23, 2012; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from October 24, 2011 through

January 23, 2012 shall be excludable in computing time under the

Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

HON. WILLIAM H. WALLS

United States District Judge

—2—
(A)

0C)

C))

U

CDCD

OCD

II

CD

CD

t:z1

a.

CDC

C))
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,400
<INVENTORY>                                     73,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,500
<PP&E>                                       1,104,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 530,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 979,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,200
<BONDS>                                        863,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   (224,900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   979,800
<SALES>                                        842,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               842,600
<CGS>                                          758,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  849,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (93,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (35,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (25,100)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.55)
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report
on Form 10-Q in accordance with Rule 15(d)-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 of Red Trail Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald Bachmeier, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, 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
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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/
      Gerald BachmeierGerald
      BachmeierChief
      Executive OfficerDated:
      August 13, 2010
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerJuly
      29, 2009