alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2021

No. 04-21-00094-CV

CITY OF EAGLE PASS,

Appellant

v.

Isabel Velasquez PEREZ, individually and a/n/f of Vanessa Velasquez, minor,

Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-01-35130-MCV

Honorable Maribel Flores, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal was originally set for formal submission and oral argument before this Court 

on Thursday, October 21, 2021, at 10:00 AM, before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Rebeca 

C. Martinez, Justice Beth Watkins, and Justice Liza A. Rodriguez in the Maverick County 

Commissioner’s Courtroom in Eagle Pass, Texas.

On its own motion, the panel WITHDRAWS this submission notice for in-person oral 

argument in Eagle Pass, Texas and ORDERS this cause set for formal submission and oral 

argument before this Court on Thursday, October 21, 2021, at 10:00 AM, before a panel 

consisting of Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Beth Watkins, and Justice Liza A. 

Rodriguez in the courtroom of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas. 

While it is anticipated that oral argument will occur in the courtroom, as the COVID-19 

situation continues to evolve, this is subject to change.

If circumstances permit, this courtroom proceeding will be streaming live and archived

on the court’s YouTube Channel: 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/USiaWJQ7eW5OQIALdyLN6s3A

In the courtroom, the following social distancing protocols will be observed and are 

subject to change:
Courtroom occupancy is limited to 27 persons, including three justices, one clerk, one 

staff attorney, and counsel of record for the appellant and appellee presenting argument (2 max. 

per side). For additional and necessary accommodations for any party on appeal, please contact 

the Clerk of Court. Counsel of record will sit at separate tables; additional attorneys or 

spectators (5 max. per side) may sit in the gallery at available seating as marked, pursuant to 

current social distancing guidelines. All persons in the courtroom are required to wear a mask, 

unless presenting argument, and to maintain an appropriate social distance of at least six feet 

from others. If you do not want to appear in person for oral argument, please contact the 

clerk immediately. Individuals entering the courtroom may be subject to a screening protocol, 

as recommended by the Office of Court of Administration. 

The time for oral argument will be limited to twenty minutes for appellant’s opening 

argument, twenty minutes for appellee’s argument, and ten minutes for appellant’s rebuttal 

argument. For cases involving multiple parties per side that wish to participate in oral argument, 

please contact the Clerk’s office to make special arrangements or file an appropriate motion after 

the parties have conferred.

If any party no longer wishes to present argument, the party must notify this court in 

writing within seven days of receiving this notice.

Entered on this 31st day of August, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Attested to:___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

Main Place Funding, LLC

Exhibit 12. Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars in Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Year            Year             Year
                                                          Ended           Ended            Ended
                                                       December 31,    December 31,     December 31,
                                                           2001            2000             1999
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>           <C>              <C>
Income before taxes                                    $ 808,855     $   911,225      $ 1,257,141

Fixed charges:
     Interest expense                                    138,630         339,016          477,810
     Amortization of debt discount and
       appropriate issuance costs                          2,036           2,962            3,306
                                                       ---------     ----------------------------
        Total fixed charges                              140,666         341,978          481,116

Earnings before fixed charges                          $ 949,521     $ 1,253,203      $ 1,738,257
                                                       =========     ============================

Fixed charges                                          $ 140,666     $   341,978      $   481,116
                                                       =========     ============================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                          6.75            3.66             3.61
</TABLE>


                                       26
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2913 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 101
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2913

                          [Report No. 111-240]

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton 
Street in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2009

  Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
Rooney, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, 
Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart 
 of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             July 31, 2009

Additional sponsors: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, 
Ms. Castor of Florida, Ms. Kosmas, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, 
                  Mr. Putnam, and Mr. Young of Florida

                             July 31, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton 
Street in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton Street in Key 
West, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.
                                                 House Calendar No. 101

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2913

                          [Report No. 111-240]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton 
Street in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 31, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jack B. Binion, 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; 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/ Jack B. Binion                                     
| |     |                                                        
| |     | Jack B. Binion, Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2741 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 545
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2741

                          [Report No. 111-275]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2009

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             August 5, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Bingaman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                    project, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 16__ the following:

``SEC. 16__. CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE 
              PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the City 
of Hermiston, Oregon, is authorized to participate in the design, 
planning, and construction of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse 
water in the City of Hermiston, Oregon.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the costs of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection 
(a).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 16__ the 
following:

``Sec. 16__. City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                            project.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 545

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2741

                          [Report No. 111-275]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                    project, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 5, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3038 

To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to the application 

of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2009 

Mr. MCDERMOTT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to 

the application of such Act. 

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 ‘‘Justice for Wards Cove 

5 Workers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 

8 U.S.C. 1981 note) is amended— 


tjames on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3038 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘(a) IN GEN2 ERAL.—’’; and 

3 (2) by striking subsection (b). 

4 SEC. 3. APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION. 

5 (a) APPLICATION.—For purposes of determining the 

6 application of the amendments made by the Civil Rights 

7 Act of 1991, such amendments shall apply to a case that 

8 was subject to section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 

9 1991 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 

10 of this Act) in the same manner and to the same extent 

11 as such amendments apply to any case brought under title 

12 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et 

13 seq.) that was not subject to section 402(b) of the Civil 

14 Rights Act of 1991. 

15 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be 

16 construed to alter, or shall be considered to be evidence 

17 of, congressional intent regarding the application of such 

18 amendments to any case that was not subject to section 

19 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Pagan, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole et al., Respondents.

[665 NYS2d 975]

White, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered April 22, 1997 in Ulster County, which converted petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate at Wallkill Correctional Facility in Ulster County, is serving a prison sentence of 20 years to life upon a 1976 conviction of the crime of murder in the second degree. In October 1995, respondent State Board of Parole denied petitioner’s application for parole release. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for habeas corpus relief challenging the Board’s determination. Supreme Court, converting the application into a CPLR article 78 proceeding, dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. We find no error in the Board applying the standards set forth in Executive Law § 259-i in denying petitioner release on parole. Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner was convicted prior to the effective date of Executive Law § 259-i, the retroactive application of this statute instead of Correction Law former §§ 213 and 214 was appropriate inasmuch as “Ex*642ecutive Law § 259-i does not impose new or additional obstacles to the granting of parole and, therefore, does not constitute an illegal ex post facto law” *(People ex rel. Casey v Demsky,*242 AD2d 759; *see, People ex rel. Gilmore v New York State Parole Bd.,*241 AD2d 793, 793-794; *see also, Matter of Ristau v Hammock,*103 AD2d 944, *lv denied*63 NY2d 608).

Moreover, our review of the record reveals that the hearing was conducted in an appropriate manner and that the Board considered the relevant statutory factors in denying petitioner’s request for parole release *(see, Matter of Farid v Travis,*239 AD2d 629, 630). Consequently, Supreme Court correctly upheld the Board’s determination.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>

31.1     Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
         Officer of VOXEL pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
         Act of 2002

I, Michael Anthony, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of VOXEL;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: June 17, 2008


/s/ Michael Anthony
-----------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Michael Anthony
-----------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Financial Officer
#### Lucia MAGANA-MAGANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 09-70348.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Gloria A. Goldman, Gloria A. Goldman, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.

Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lucia Magana-Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Ma-gana-Magana failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). Magana-Magana’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect hardship standard is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we have jurisdiction. *See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

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