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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 176 

Designating September 2015 as ‘‘National Brain Aneurysm Awareness 

Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2015 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. DURBIN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2015 as ‘‘National Brain Aneurysm 

Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas a brain aneurysm is an abnormal saccular or 

fusiform bulging of an artery in the brain; 

Whereas an estimated 1 out of every 50 people in the United 

States has a brain aneurysm; 

Whereas brain aneurysms are most likely to occur in people 

between the ages of 35 and 60, and there are typically 

no warning signs; 

Whereas brain aneurysms are more likely to occur in women 

than in men by a 3-to-2 ratio; 

Whereas young and middle-aged African-Americans have a 

higher risk of brain aneurysm rupture compared to Caucasian Americans; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 176 IS 

Whereas, based on a 2004 study, the most recent year with 

readily available data, the combined lost wages of survivors of a brain aneurysm rupture and their caretakers 

for 1 year were $138,000,000; 

Whereas various risk factors can contribute to the formation 

of a brain aneurysm, including smoking, hypertension, 

and a family history of brain aneurysms; 

Whereas approximately 6,000,000 people in the United 

States have a brain aneurysm; 

Whereas an unruptured brain aneurysm can lead to double 

vision, vision loss, loss of sensation, weakness, loss of balance, incoordination, and speech problems; 

Whereas a brain aneurysm is often discovered when it ruptures and causes a subarachnoid hemorrhage; 

Whereas a subarachnoid hemorrhage can lead to brain damage, hydrocephalus, stroke, and death; 

Whereas, each year, more than 30,000 people in the United 

States suffer from ruptured brain aneurysms, 50 percent 

of whom die as a result; 

Whereas, annually, between 3,000 and 4,500 people in the 

United States with ruptured brain aneurysms die before 

reaching the hospital; 

Whereas a number of advancements have been made in recent years regarding the detection of aneurysms, including the computerized tomography scan, the magnetic resonance imaging test, and the cerebral arteriogram, and 

early detection can save lives; 

Whereas various research studies are currently being conducted in the United States in order to better understand, prevent, and treat brain aneurysms; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 176 IS 

Whereas the United States spends only $1.30 per person for 

research each year on the approximately 6,000,000 people of the United States who suffer from brain aneurysms; and 

Whereas the month of September would be an appropriate 

month to designate as ‘‘National Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates September 2015 as ‘‘National 

3 Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month’’; and 

4 (2) continues to support research to prevent, 

5 detect, and treat brain aneurysms. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 14–0399

Filed January 22, 2016

UZMA AMIN,

Appellant,

vs.

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. 

Rosenberg, Judge. 

A challenge to the timeliness of an appeal from a ruling and order 

by the district court dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction. APPEAL 

DISMISSED. 

Alfredo Parrish and Adam Witosky of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn 

Boles Gribble & Gentry L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant. 

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Barbara E.B. Galloway, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
2

PER CURIAM.

Uzma Amin’s petition for judicial review of an agency action was 

dismissed by the district court for insufficient proof of service. The Iowa 

Department of Human Services filed a motion to dismiss under Iowa 

Code section 17A.19(2) (2013). An order sustaining a motion to dismiss 

was e-filed on February 3, 2014. On February 4, the Electronic Data 

Management System generated the electronic notice of the order, which 

included the “Official File Stamp: 02-03-2014:15:16:29.” On March 6, 

thirty-one days after the order was filed, Amin filed a notice of appeal,

which noted the order’s issuance on February 3. The Iowa Rules of 

Appellate Procedure require a notice of appeal “be filed within 30 days 

after the filing of the final order or judgment.” Iowa R. App. P. 

6.101(1)(b). Based on our decision in Concerned Citizens of Southeast 

Polk School District v. City Development Board, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 

2015), we find the notice of appeal in this case was untimely and,

therefore, dismiss the appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

This opinion shall not be published.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6914

VINCENT LEE FOREMAN, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-213) Submitted: February 10, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Lee Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vincent Lee Foreman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and his motion to amend his original petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foreman has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Foreman's notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. SeeUnited States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) (2000), a motion for a second or successive- 3 - habeas corpus petition may not be granted for any claim that was presented in a prior application under § 2254. Because the claim Foreman raises has already been rejected by the district court in its ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion, and by this court on appeal, Foreman v. Johnson , 107 Fed. App’x 333 (4th Cir. 2004), he fails to establish grounds for this court to authorize a successive § 2254 petition. Therefore, we decline to authorize a successive § 2254 petition. 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.

DISMISSED
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 31, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00904

- CR

Jonathan Matthew ESCOBEDO

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From t he 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 09

- 0117

- CRA Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on December 15, 2014. On December 29, 2014, this court notified the court reporter responsible for preparing the record, Mr. Richey Gentry, that the record was late, and Mr. Gentry immediately filed a notification of late record stating that he had not received any notice of the appeal before being contacted by this court. Mr. Gentry requests a sixty

- day extension of time from December 29, 2014, in which to file the record. The request is GRANTED. The reporter’s record must be filed in this appeal no later than February 27, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED

ABSENT EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 31st day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Elvira M. POLLARD, individually and as representative of Estate of Gustavus Rugley, Jr., Plaintiff, and Micha Star Liberty, Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; San Francisco Police Department; Heather Fong, Chief, San Francisco Police Department, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-15307.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2007.

Filed Dec. 20, 2007.

Micha Star Liberty Andrus Liberty *&*Anderson San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Sharon J. Arkin, Esq., Arkin & Glovsky, Lake Forest, CA, for Appellant.

Sean Connolly, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Micha Star Liberty (Liberty) appeals the district court’s Order entered *17February 21, 2007, *sua sponte*imposing sanctions against Liberty for failing to conduct a sufficient investigation prior to asserting a civil rights claim on behalf of her client.1

The district court violated Liberty’s due process rights by ordering sanctions without notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. *See Navellier v. Sletten,*262 F.3d 923, 943 (9th Cir.2001) (“When a court imposes sanctions *sua sponte,*the general rule is that it must first issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed to give the lawyer or party an opportunity to explain his or her conduct.”) (citation omitted). Additionally, the district court lacked authority to impose sanctions for pleadings filed in state court prior to removal. *See Buster v. Greisen,*104 F.3d 1186, 1190 n. 4 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining that a party may be sanctioned by the district court based on pleading filed in state court only if the party urges the allegations of those pleadings after removal). Finally, Liberty did not engage in sanctionable conduct by amending her client’s complaint to include a civil rights claim. *See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,*496 U.S. 384, 401-02, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (recognizing that a pre-filing investigation that might otherwise be unreasonable may be reasonable where the attorney has limited time to prepare pleadings before the applicable statute of limitations expires).

In sum, the district court abused its discretion when it awarded fees and costs against Liberty and referred her to the State Bar of California and the Northern District’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. More importantly, absolutely no basis for the imposition of discipline existed.

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS VACATED; AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS VACATED; REFERRAL TO STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT’S STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VACATED.

Each party shall bear her or its costs on appeal.

*

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

1

. Nothing in the record supports this finding and the defendants in no way sought or participated in the imposition of sanctions against Liberty.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelo CHAVEZ-MONTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10432.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Marianne A. Pansa, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

*946Patience Milrod, Esq., Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marcelo Chavez-Montez appeals from his jury-trial conviction and the 115-month sentence imposed for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 114 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 114

  Supporting the designation of March 2015, as ``National Colorectal 
                       Cancer Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2015

    Mr. Enzi (for himself and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Supporting the designation of March 2015, as ``National Colorectal 
                       Cancer Awareness Month''.

Whereas colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men 
        and women combined in the United States;
Whereas in 2015, more than 130,000 individuals in the United States will be 
        diagnosed with colorectal cancer and approximately 50,000 more will die 
        from it;
Whereas colorectal cancer is 1 of the most preventable forms of cancer because 
        screening tests can find polyps that can be removed before becoming 
        cancerous;
Whereas screening tests can detect colorectal cancer early, which is when 
        treatment works best;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that if every 
        individual aged 50 or older had regular screening tests, as many as 60 
        percent of deaths from colorectal cancer could be prevented;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for patients with localized colorectal cancer 
        is 90 percent, but only 39 percent of all diagnoses occur at that stage;
Whereas colorectal cancer screenings can effectively reduce the incidence of 
        colorectal cancer and mortality, but 1 in 3 adults between the ages of 
        50 and 75 are not up to date with recommended colorectal cancer 
        screening;
Whereas public awareness and education campaigns on colorectal cancer 
        prevention, screening, and symptoms are held during the month of March 
        each year; and
Whereas educational efforts can help provide to the public information on 
        methods of prevention and screening, as well as symptoms for early 
        detection: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the designation of March 2015 as ``National 
        Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month'' and the goals and ideals of 
        that month; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the month with appropriate awareness and educational 
        activities.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION





I, Mitchell E. Rudin, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc.; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.


Date: April 29, 2014By:/s/ MITCHELL E. RUDINMitchell E. RudinPresident and Chief Executive Officer,U.S. Commercial Operations(Principal executive officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
unaudited consolidated balance sheets and the consolidated statement of income 
filed as a part of the quarterly report on Form 10Q and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such quarterly report of Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000887150
<NAME>                          Charles Clayton
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<CURRENCY>                      US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-26-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1
<CASH>                              761
<SECURITIES>                        530
<RECEIVABLES>                    50,561
<ALLOWANCES>                     (4,757)
<INVENTORY>                      49,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                101,087
<PP&E>                           40,753
<DEPRECIATION>                  (25,994)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  134,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            55,739
<BONDS>                          21,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            423
<OTHER-SE>                       55,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     134,394 
<SALES>                          114,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 115,282
<CGS>                             93,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     93,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  21,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (1,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                         150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (1,295)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,295)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.31)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd Blonder, ChiefFinancial 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, tomy knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report.
| Dated: April 30, 2007 |   | /s/ LLOYD BLONDER                                                      |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Lloyd Blonder,                                                         |
|                  |   | *Senior  Vice President  and Treasurer  (Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
#### Wade A. MALONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD, Mr., Nurse at Facility, Richmond City Jail; Infirmary Staff, Richmond City Jail, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-7395.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

Wade A. Malone, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas D. Lane, Tiller Law Group, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Ford.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wade A. Malone appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Malone v. Ford,*No. 3:06-cv-00500-RLW (E.D.Va. Aug. 24, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *538materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Order entered November 9 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00488

- CR

FRANK ROBERT BLAES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crimi nal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17

- 00535

- J



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 07, 2018 unopposed third motion to extend

time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant’ s motion and ORDER the brief rece ived on

November 7, 2018 filed as of the date of this order.

Appellee’s brief is due by December 10, 2018

.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE