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

Calendar No. 154

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 917

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 20, 2003

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Floyd Spence Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, South 

6 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Floyd 

7 Spence Post Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 917 RS 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Floyd Spence Post Office Building’’. 

Calendar No. 154

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 917

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1830 South Lake Drive in 

Lexington, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Floyd Spence Post Office Building’’. 

JUNE 20, 2003

Reported without amendment
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2 , 2023

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00595

- CV

LILLIAN GARRICK , Appellant

V.

MELVIN ANGELL & RETA ANGELL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the Co unty C our t at Law No

. 1 and Probate C ourt

Brazoria Coun ty, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CI64413

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed August 12, 20 2 2 . The clerk’s record

was filed September 22, 20 22

. No brief was filed.

On March 23, 2 023, this court issued an order stating that unless appe llant

filed a brief on or before April 24, 2023 , the appeal was subject to dismissal

without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We di smiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Pan el con sists of Chief Justi ce Christopher and Justices J e well and Spain.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 21, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00214

- CV

IN RE Juan Miguel MATA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Jason Pulliam , Ju stice

On May 14, 2015, relator filed a motion to amend and a motion to withdraw his brief for

writ of mandamus, previously filed in this court on April 27, 2015.

Relator’s motion to withdraw his brief is GRANTED.

Relator’s motion to amend appears to seek a further extension of time in which to file a

motion for rehearing. Having granted relator’s prior motion for extension of time on May 14,

2015 , relator’s request to further extend that deadline is DENIED at this time

. The extended

deadline for the filing of any motion for rehearing with respect to this court’s April 29, 2015

opinion is June 8, 2015. This order is without prejudice to relator’s ability to file a motion for

further extension in compliance with Te xas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.8.

It is so ORDERED on May 21, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2714 , styled In the Matter of Maria Elena Mata and Juan Miguel Ma ta

, pending in the County Court

, Dimmit County, Texas, the Honorable Francisco G. Ponce presiding.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Catalyst Resource Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Henry Fahman, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

 

Date: March 31, 2011

/s/ Henry Fahman         

Henry Fahman

Interim Chief Executive/Financial Officer

 

 

----
#### Josh DONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENTON COUNTY CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-35802.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Jan. 3, 2013.

Josh Donley, Clallam Bay, WA, pro se.

Reid Hay, Ryan Joseph Lukson, Benton County Prosecutor’s Office, Kenneth Allen Miller, Miller Mertens Comfort Wagar & Kreutz, PLLC, Kennewick, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Josh Donley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Donley failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded Donley’s serious medical needs related to the treatment of an infection in his left knee. *See id.*at 1057-58 (discussing objective and subjective elements of deliberate indifference claim and explaining that inmate’s difference of opinion with physician concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); *see also Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (isolated instances of negligence do not constitute deliberate indifference and delay in treatment is also insufficient absent proof that it resulted in further significant injury or the wanton infliction of pain).

Donley’s arguments that the district court improperly granted summary judgment after concluding that triable disputes existed and improperly resolved his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are rejected.

We do not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief, including Don-ley’s evidentiary objections to defendants’ statement of facts. *See Graves v. Arpaio,*623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-108570, 333-111525, 333-115832 and 333-145675) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-42598, 333-42596, 333-42594, 333-124265, 333-137348 and 333-141175) of Curis, Inc. of our report dated
March 4, 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
|Boston, Massachusetts         
|March 14, 2008
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 42 toRegistration Statement No. 033-17917 on Form N-1A of our report dated November 12, 2013, relating to the financial statements andfinancial highlights of American High-Income Trust appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is part of suchRegistration Statement, and to the references to us under the headings “Financial highlights” in the Prospectus and“Independent registered public accounting firm” and “Prospectuses, reports to shareholders and proxy statements”in the Statement of Additional Information, which are part of such Registration Statement.

 

 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Costa Mesa, California

August 27, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,112,000
<SECURITIES>                                51,978,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,064,000
<PP&E>                                       8,819,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,008,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,363,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          975,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  69,281,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,363,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,255,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,744,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                429,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            429,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   429,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 710 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 710

   For the relief of Mrs. Florence Narusewicz of Erie, Pennsylvania.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2003

 Mr. English introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   For the relief of Mrs. Florence Narusewicz of Erie, Pennsylvania.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF VETERANS BENEFIT AUTHORIZED.

    Notwithstanding sections 5121(a) and 5122 of title 38, United 
States Code, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall pay to Mrs. 
Florence Narusewicz of Erie, Pennsylvania, the sum of $28,000, 
representing the amount of an award for a disability incurred by her 
husband Leo E. Narusewicz during active military service in World War 
II, which was paid to Mr. Narusewicz in two installment checks, neither 
of which could be deposited or cashed by Mrs. Narusewicz after his 
death.
                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 123

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 5, 2003.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Ruppersberger

(to rank immediately after Mr. Alexander).

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon Washington, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 877]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). Contrary to the People’s contention, the record contains no waiver by defendant of the right to appeal, although we note that County Court indicated at the commencement of the plea proceeding that it assumed that the plea bargain included such a waiver. Nevertheless, we reject the challenge by defendant to the severity of the bargained-for sentence, raised in his main and pro se supplemental briefs. The record belies the further contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that he was not advised of the period of postrelease supervision and thus that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Indeed, the record establishes that the court advised defendant at the commencement of the plea colloquy that his plea bargain included a mandatory five-year period of postrelease supervision. Finally, defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant must raise that contention by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to the extent that it concerns matters outside the record on appeal *(see People v Cook,*46 AD3d 1427 [2007]; *People v Hilken,*6 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2004], *Iv denied*3 NY3d 641 [2004]). To the extent that defendant’s contention concerns matters in the record before us and survives defendant’s guilty plea *(see People v Thompson,*45 AD3d 1414 [2007]; *People v Burke,*256 AD2d 1244 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 851 [1999]), we conclude that it is lacking in merit *(see generally People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000885040
<NAME>                        VERMONT PURE HOLDINGS, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                       <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     1,281,980
<SECURITIES>                               1,735,029
<RECEIVABLES>                              5,102,016
<ALLOWANCES>                               494,094
<INVENTORY>                                2,002,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           11,522,360
<PP&E>                                     20,834,765
<DEPRECIATION>                             6,202,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             40,403,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      6,224,653
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   10,345
<OTHER-SE>                                 13,244,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               13,254,429
<SALES>                                    24,806,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           24,806,803
<CGS>                                      10,219,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              10,219,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           13,922,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,176,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (238,319)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (238,319)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.02)




</TABLE>
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07

- 23

- 00445

- CR
ERVIN JOSE OSORIO MIRANDA , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 64th District Court Castro County, Texas Trial Court No
. A4209

- 2205 , Honorable Danah L. Zirpoli , Presiding



### January 12 , 2024 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Ervin Jose Osorio Miranda, appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a young child 1 and sentence to thir ty years of confinement. The clerk’s record was originally due August 15 , 2023, but was not filed

. 2 By letter of December 13 , 2023,

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.02(b).

2 Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal with the trial court clerk on July 8 , 202 3 . The notice of appeal was not forwarded to the Clerk of this Court , however, until December 4, 202 3

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(c)(1), (e).2

we notified the trial court clerk that the record was overdue and directed her to advise this Court of the status of the record by December 27 . To date, the clerk has neither filed the record nor sought an extension of time to do so.
Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 35.3(c) ( “ The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. ” ); 37.3(a)(2) (requiring appellate co urts to “ make whatever order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties ’ rights ” when the appellate record is not timely filed). On remand, the trial court shall determine the following:
( 1 ) what tasks remain to complete the filin g of the clerk’ s record;
( 2 ) why the clerk has not completed the necessary tasks;
( 3 ) what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those tasks; and
(4) whether the clerk can complete the tasks within the time the trial court finds reasonable.
The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a clerk ’ s record and cause that record to be filed with this C ourt by February 12 , 202 4

. Should the clerk file the record on or before January 26 , 2024, she is directed to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall not be required to take any further action.3

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
Do not publish.
IV 

House Calendar No. 1

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 14

[Report No. 108–1] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-month 

extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act 

of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation 

when the program under such Act ends. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. SESSIONS, 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 (S. 23) to provide 

for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 and for a 

transition period for individuals receiving compensation 

when the program under such Act ends.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the bill (S. 23) to provide 

4 for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Un5 employment Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transi-
2

HRES 14 RH 

1 tion period for individuals receiving compensation when 

2 the program under such Act ends. The bill shall be consid3 ered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 

4 be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage with5 out intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 

6 the bill equally divided and controlled by Representative 

7 Thomas of California and Representative Rangel of New 

8 York; and (2) on motion to recommit. 

9 SEC. 2. The allocations referred to in section 

10 3(a)(4)(B)(i) of House Resolution 5 may be submitted by 

11 Representative Nussle of Iowa. 

House Calendar No. 1

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 14

[Report No. 108–1] 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 23) to 

provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends. 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge CASTILLO-BOLANOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40406

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*328PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Castillo-Bolanos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Castillo-Bolanos has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

*

 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.