alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andreas Valera, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 879]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered on or about January 5, 1995, unanimously affirmed.

*144Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.
NO. 07-05-0398-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JANUARY 6, 2006

______________________________

TERRY WAYNE STEWART,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 251st DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 33,132-C; HON. PATRICK PIRTLE, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Terry Wayne Stewart appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for “bill of

review.” The clerk’s record was due to be filed on December 5, 2005. On December 13,

2005, the clerk filed her first extension request to file the record because appellant has not

paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and no attorney has been appointed on

appeal.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 251st District Court

of Potter County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall
2

immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to

determine the following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and,

2. whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel and a

free record on appeal. 

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute

findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be

developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and conclusions of

law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter, and 3) cause to be

developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the

aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental

record and reporter’s record transcribing the hearing with the clerk of this court on or before

February 6, 2006. Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks,

then same must be requested before February 6, 2006.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3295 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the provisions prohibiting persons convicted of drug offenses from receiving student financial 

assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2009 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. COHEN, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. 

CONYERS, Mr. BERMAN, Ms. WATERS, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. DELAURO, 

Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. STARK, Mr. RUSH, Mr. HONDA, Mr. 

BOUCHER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. MASSA, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Ms. CLARKE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. FILNER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. HIRONO, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. BRADY of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, and Ms. LEE of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal 

the provisions prohibiting persons convicted of drug offenses from receiving student financial assistance. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3295 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Impedi3 ments to Students Education Act of 2009’’ or the ‘‘RISE 

4 Act of 2009’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS PROHIBITING PERSONS 

6 CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES FROM RE7 CEIVING STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Subsection (r) of section 484 of the 

9 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)) is re10 pealed. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 485(k) of 

12 such Act (20 U.S.C. 1092(k)) is amended to read as fol13 lows: 

14 ‘‘(k) NOTICE TO STUDENTS CONCERNING PEN15 ALTIES FOR DRUG VIOLATIONS.—Not later than 30 days 

16 after the date of enactment of the RISE Act of 2009, an 

17 institution of higher education shall provide to each stu18 dent who lost eligibility for any grant, loan, or work-study 

19 assistance under this title as a result of the penalties listed 

20 under 484(r)(1) as in effect before the date of enactment 

21 of such Act, and who has not regained eligibility for such 

22 assistance before such date of enactment, a separate, 

23 clear, and conspicuous written notice that notifies the stu24 dent of the repeal of section 484(r) and advises the stuVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:52 Jul 23, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3295.IH H3295

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3295 IH

1 dent that the student has regained eligibility for such as2 sistance as of such date of enactment.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21

                            EQUUS GAMING COMPANY L.P.
                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


1-     Equus  Entertainment  Corporation  (see  NOTE  A)
2-     Virginia  Turf  Club,  Inc.
3-     Equus  Comuneros  S.A.
4-     Equus  Entertainment  de  Panama,  S.A.
5-     Galapagos,  S.A.


NOTE  A:
Equus  Entertainment  Corporation  has  a  subsidiary,  Housing  Development
Associates,  S.A.,  which  in  turn  has  the  following  subsidiaries:

1  -  El  Comandante  Capital  Corp.
2  -  El  Comandante  Management  Company  LLC
3  -  Agency  Betting  Network,  Inc.
4  -  Satellite  Services  International,  Inc.


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Arnold REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-5002.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 7, 2011.

Decided: April 15, 2011.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In 2003, Timothy Arnold Reynolds pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006), and the district court sentenced him to sixty-four months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Subsequently, Reynolds pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his supervised release and the *310court sentenced him to eighteen months of imprisonment. Reynolds now appeals, arguing that the revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews a sentence imposed as a result of a supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. *United States v. Crudup,*461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir.2006). The first step in this analysis is a determination of whether the sentence was unreasonable. *Id.*at 438. This court, in determining reasonableness, follows generally the procedural and substantive considerations employed in reviewing original sentences. *Id.*On review, we will assume a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion. *Id.*at 439.

Although a district court must consider the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the sentencing guidelines along with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), “ ‘the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.’” *Crudup,*461 F.3d at 439 (quoting *United, States v. Lewis,*424 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir.2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a sentence imposed after a revocation is not unreasonable, we will not proceed to the second prong of the analysis-whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. *Crudup,*461 F.3d at 438-39. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable, and therefore we have no need to consider whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22403]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee.

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, November 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 
469-801-0769.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Friday, November 17, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time via 
teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. For more information please 
contact: Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 469-801-0769, TAP 
Office, 4050 Alpha Rd., Farmers Branch, TX 75244, or contact us at the 
Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to 
the IRS and other TAP related topics. The public input is welcomed.

    Dated: October 11, 2017.
Antoinette Ross,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2017-22403 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
II 

Calendar No. 236 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3072 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 17, 2009 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 9810 Halls Ferry Road in St. Louis, Missouri, 

as the ‘‘Coach Jodie Bailey 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. COACH JODIE BAILEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 9810 Halls Ferry Road in St. 

6 Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Coach Jodie Bailey Post Office Building’’. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3072 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Coach Jodie Bailey 

5 Post Office Building’’. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 236 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3072 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Coach Jodie Bailey al Service located at 9810 Halls Ferry Road in 

DECEMBER 17, 2009 

Reported without amendment 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as  adopted),  Thomas E.  Wharton  Jr.,  the Chief  Executive  Officer of
iSECUREtrac  Corp.  (the  "Company"),  and David G.  Vana,  the Chief  Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that:

1.    The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June
      30,  2004,  to which this  Certification  is  attached  as Exhibit 32 (the
      "Periodic Report"),  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.    The information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,  in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition of the Company at the end of
      the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the
      Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.


Dated:  August 16, 2004

/S/ THOMAS E. WHARTON JR.                   /S/   DAVID G. VANA
------------------------------              ------------------------------
    Thomas E. Wharton Jr.                         David G. Vana
    Chief Executive Officer                       Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                       Exhibit 8

                           Subsidiaries of the Company

Following is a list of subsidiaries of the Company, ownership percentages, and
the jurisdictions of incorporation or organization of each as of March 14, 2005.
Each subsidiary does business in its own name only.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Jurisdiction of Incorporation
            Subsidiary                                         or Organization
----------------------------------------------          -----------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>
MMM Exploraciones S.A. de C.V. (100%)                          Mexico
Metallica (Barbados) Inc. (100%)                               Barbados
De Re Holdings Inc. (100%)                                     British Virgin Islands
Desarrollos Metallica C.A. (100%)                              Venezuela
  (Inactive)
Datawave Sciences Inc. (100%)                                  British Virgin Islands
Minera Metallica Ltda. (100%)                                  Chile
Metallica Management Inc. (100%)                               Colorado, U.S.A.
Raleigh Mining International Ltd. (100%)                       Canada
Minera San Xavier, S.A. de C.V. (100%)                         Mexico
Servicios del Plata y Oro, S.A. de C.V. (100%)                 Mexico
</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1








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





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Intermost
Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (the “Company”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-QA for the three months
ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Rocky Wulianghai,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, that
to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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.





This
certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be
deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any
purpose whatsoever.





Date:  December
1, 2008








By:
              /s/ Rocky
      WulianghaiRocky
      Wulianghai, President and
                Chief
      Executive Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130851 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130851 

 COA: 258261 

Wayne CC: 04-005067

CARLOS DEMARCO FREEMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for 

resentencing. The Court of Appeals determined that the defendant’s sentencing 

guidelines were misscored and that the applicable guidelines range was lower than the 

one within which the defendant was originally sentenced. Under these circumstances, 

resentencing is required. People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006). On remand, the court 

shall sentence defendant within the appropriate sentencing guidelines range, or articulate 

on the record a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the sentencing 

guidelines range in accordance with People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003). 

t0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32

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 GeoMet, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Darby Seré, Chief Executive Officer, and I, William C. Rankin, Chief Financial 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, to our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/    J. DARBY SERÉ    |  |  |  | /s/    WILLIAM C. RANKIN
|J. Darby Seré           |  |  |  | William C. Rankin       
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer 
|March 14, 2008          |  |  |  | March 14, 2008          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
JEAN TERRILL, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AR MY, Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3185

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC

- 0752

- 13

- 0486 -I- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Jean Terrill submits her informal brief , which the

court construes as a motion to file her brief out of time.

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. Terrill’s brief is accepted for filing. Case: 14-3185 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2014TERRILL v. ARMY 2

(2) The Department of the Army shall calculate the due date for its brief from the date of filing of this order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s30 Case: 14-3185 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2014