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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2900 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may 

carry certain concealed firearms in that State. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 

provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which 

nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure Access to Fire5 arms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011’’. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2900 IH

1 SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN 

2 CONCEALED FIREARMS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain con7 cealed firearms 

8 ‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any 

9 State or political subdivision thereof: 

10 ‘‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal 

11 law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or re12 ceiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or 

13 permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any 

14 State and which permits the person to carry a con15 cealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed 

16 firearm in accordance with the terms of the license 

17 or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which 

18 the firearm is carried concerning specific types of lo19 cations in which firearms may not be carried. 

20 ‘‘(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal 

21 law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or re22 ceiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described 

23 in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed fire24 arm in and pursuant to the law of the State in 

25 which the person resides, may carry in any State a 

26 concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2900 IH

1 State in which the person resides, subject to the 

2 laws of the State in which the firearm is carried con3 cerning specific types of locations in which firearms 

4 may not be carried.’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

6 for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after 

7 the item relating to section 926C the following: 

‘‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

9 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

10 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors
and/or officers of TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY (Company), a Delaware
corporation, acting in its capacity as general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.,
does hereby constitute and appoint WILLIAM L. THACKER, CHARLES H. LEONARD AND
JAMES C. RUTH, and each of them, his true and lawful attorney and agent to do
any and all acts and things, and execute any and all instruments which, with the
advise and consent of Counsel, said attorney and agent may deem necessary or
advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities Act of 1934, as
Amended, and any rules regulations, and requirements of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, including specifically, but without limitation thereof, to
sign his name as a director and/or officer of the Company to the Form 10-K
Report for TEPPCO Partners, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 1998, and to
any instrument or document filed as a part of, or in accordance with, said Form
10-K or Amendment thereto; and the undersigned to hereby ratify and confirm all
that said attorney and agent shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this
10th day of March, 1999.


\s\ William L. Thacker                             \s\ Fred J. Fowler
---------------------------                        ----------------------------
William L. Thacker                                 Fred J. Fowler



\s\ Ruth G. Shaw                                   \s\ Jim W. Mogg
---------------------------                        ----------------------------
Ruth G. Shaw                                       Jim W. Mogg



\s\ Richard J. Osborne                             \s\ Derrill Cody
---------------------------                        ----------------------------
Richard J. Osborne                                 Derrill Cody



\s\ Milton Carroll                                 \s\ Carl D. Clay
---------------------------                        ----------------------------
Milton Carroll                                     Carl D. Clay



\s\ John P. DesBarres                              \s\ Charles H. Leonard
---------------------------                        ----------------------------
John P. Desbarres                                  Charles H. Leonard
                                                   Senior Vice President, 
                                                   CFO & Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2843 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2843

                   For the relief of Monica Elizondo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 6, 2011

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Monica Elizondo.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MONICA ELIZONDO.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Monica Elizondo shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Monica Elizondo enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Monica Elizondo, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Monica 
Elizondo shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
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**In connection with the Annual Report of JMAR Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), Ronald A. Walrod, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Dennis E.Valentine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of ourknowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         By:  /s/ Ronald A. Walrod    Ronald A. Walrod    Chief Executive Officer       By:  /s/ Dennis E. Valentine    Dennis E. Valentine    Chief Financial Officer   April 7, 2006
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2667 

To provide for improvements to the administration of bankruptcy in cases 

under chapter 7 of title 11 of the United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2011 

Mr. CONYERS (for himself and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for improvements to the administration of bankruptcy in cases under chapter 7 of title 11 of the United 

States Code. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chapter 7 Bankruptcy 

5 Administration Improvement Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES. 

7 (a) NEW ASSET ADJUSTMENTS.—Section 326(a) of 

8 title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘(a) 

9 In a case under chapter 7 or 11’’ and inserting the fol10 lowing: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2667 IH

1 ‘‘(a)(1) In a case under chapter 7, the court may 

2 allow reasonable compensation under section 330 of this 

3 title of the trustee for the trustee’s services, payable after 

4 the trustee renders such services, not to exceed 25 percent 

5 on the first $50,000 or less, 15 percent on any amount 

6 in excess of $50,000 but not in excess of $250,000, 5 per7 cent on any amount in excess of $250,000 but not in ex8 cess of $1,000,000, and 3 percent on any amount in excess 

9 of $1,000,000, upon all moneys disbursed or turned over 

10 in the case by the trustee to parties in interest, excluding 

11 the debtor, but including holders of secured claims. 

12 ‘‘(2) In a case under chapter 11’’. 

13 (b) COMPENSATION.—Section 330(a)(7) of title 11, 

14 the United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

15 ‘‘(7) In determining the amount of reasonable com16 pensation to be awarded to a trustee under chapter 7, the 

17 court shall treat such compensation as a commission, 

18 based on section 326(a)(1).’’. 

19 SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

20 The amendments made by this Act shall not apply 

21 with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 

22 United States Code before the date of the enactment of 

23 this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23
                                                                 ----------

                  <LOGO> SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                         ----------------------------------
                            CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Slade's Ferry Bancorp of our report dated January 15, 2003
(except for Note 11 which is March 5, 2003).


                                     /s/ Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.
                                     SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 19, 2003


<PAGE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0913n.06

Filed: November 18, 2005

No. 04-6040

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MYRON JEFFERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: RYAN, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Myron Jefferson entered a guilty plea to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after

the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence. Jefferson now seeks to appeal the denial

of the motion to suppress, contending that his was a conditional guilty plea in accordance with Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The government counters that Jefferson waived his right to appellate review

by failing to comply with the dictates of the rule—preserving in writing the specific issue to be

appealed. We agree with the government.

This court strictly enforces the requirement that the conditional plea be in writing. United

States v. Herrera, 265 F.3d 349, 351-52 (6th. Cir 2001) (holding that a counsel’s oral statements at

a plea hearing—that the plea being entered was conditional—did not satisfy the Rule 11 writing

requirement). Jefferson relies on the written “Minutes” from his change-of-plea hearing as
No. 04-6040

USA v. Jefferson

- 2 -

satisfying the writing requirement. But since Rule 11(a)(2) “places an affirmative duty on the

defendant to preserve all potential collateral challenges” in writing, United States v. Pickett, 941

F.2d 411, 416 (6th Cir. 1991)(first emphasis added), the clerical notation cannot suffice to preserve

Jefferson’s right to appeal the suppression order. We thus dismiss Jefferson’s appeal of the denial

of his suppression motion. 

As for Jefferson’s appeal of his sentence, we rejected his exact Apprendi-based argument in

United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, we vacate and remand for

resentencing, with the acquiescence of the government, under the prevailing non-mandatory regime.

See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 of Envirosafe Corporation (the
"Company") for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Guo, Yan Bin, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:
  * the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  * the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Guo, Yan
Bin
 Guo, Yan
Bin
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 
 Date:
August 15, 2008
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.2




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Point.360 ( the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Alan R. Steel, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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/  Alan R. Steel
-------------------------------
Alan R. Steel
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2004
#### Jimmy D. DUNIGAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-6107.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 2008.

Decided: June 20, 2008.

Jimmy D. Dunigan, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney *254General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy D. Dunigan, a state prisoner, has filed a second notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. As our previous decision in No. 06-6194 dismissed Dunigan’s appeal from the district court’s judgment, we dismiss the present appeal of that same judgment as duplicative. 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.*
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 

23, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00590-CR

NO. 14-13-00591-CR

NO. 14-13-00592-CR

IN RE DAVID A. PEREZ, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1248823, 1249065 & 1323866

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 10, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In 

the petition, relator complains The Honorable Shawna L. Reagin, presiding judge 

of the 176th District Court of Harris County, Texas, has failed to rule on his 

motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
2

To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show 

that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he 

seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial 

decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 

236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). When a motion 

is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and 

resolving it is ministerial, not discretionary. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134–

35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).

This court is empowered to compel by writ of mandamus a district court to 

consider and rule on properly filed pending motions if (1) relator has asked the trial 

court to rule, and (2) the trial court either refused to rule or failed to rule within a 

reasonable time. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426, 427 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); Von Kolb v. Koehler, 609 S.W.2d 654, 

655-56 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1980, no writ). There is no bright-line rule 

establishing a reasonable time period. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d at 135. Some of 

the factors involved in the determination include the trial court’s actual knowledge 

of the motion, any overt refusal to act on it, and the state of the trial court's docket. 

See id. (citing Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.1979)). A relator has 

the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to 

mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) (orig. 

proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7. 

In this case, the motion relator claims was filed in the trial court does not 

reflect a file-stamp from the 176th District Court and therefore does not 

demonstrate the motion is actually pending in the trial court. Absent a showing the 
3

motion was filed and the trial court is aware of the motion, relator has not 

established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.

Do Not Publish - Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00435-CV

DANIEL VILLANUEVA, Appellant

V.

RNA FINANCIAL LLC, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County (352-325638-21)

July 11, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellant Daniel Villanueva shall bear the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
#### Charles M. Mirrione, trustee,1 vs. Michael Jacobs & others.2

February 13, 2006.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Appeal from order of single justice, Superintendence of inferior courts. *Appeals Court,*Appeal from order of single justice.

*Edmund A. Allcock*for Charles M. Mirrione.

1

Of the Hunter’s Ridge Realty Tmst.

2

Gerald Wine and Seamus Kelly.

The petitioner, Charles M. Mirrione, appeals from the denial of his petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, by a single justice of this court. We affirm.

Mirrione is a defendant in a civil action pending in the Superior Court in which Michael Jacobs, Gerald Wine, and Seamus Kelly (plaintiffs) are challenging the issuance of a special permit and definitive subdivision approval. Pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, Mirrione moved in the Superior Court for an order requiring each plaintiff to post a cash or surety bond to secure court costs. The Superior Court judge denied the motions. A single justice of the Appeals Court denied Mirrione’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par. Mirrione’s G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition was subsequently denied.

Mirrione has filed a memorandum of law and record appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule applies where “a single justice denies relief from a challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court.” S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (1), 421 Mass. 1303 (1995). “We consider S.J.C. Rule 2:21 ... to be applicable here, notwithstanding the effort to obtain relief in the Appeals Court, because the focus of the petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is on the action of the trial court.” *Picciotto*v. *Zabin (No. 1),*433 Mass. 1006, 1007 n.3 (2001). Mirrione must show that “review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). This he cannot do. Mirrione has obtained review of the Superior Court judge’s ruling under G. L. c. 231, § 118. “Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not Be where review under [G. L.] c. 231, § 118, would suffice.” *Greco*v. *Plymouth Sav. Bank,*423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996).

*Judgment affirmed.*

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.