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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1659 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1659

         To suspend temporarily the duty on <greek-b>-naphthol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 1993

  Mr. Tauzin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on <greek-b>-naphthol.

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

SECTION 1. <greek-b>-NAPHTHOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12   <greek-b>-naphthol. (CAS No.             Free           No change      On or before     
                         135-19-3) (provided for in                                             12/31/97      ''
                         2907.15.30).................  Free                                                    .

    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application to certain entries.--
        Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request 
        filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th day 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or 
        withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any goods 
        described in heading 9902.31.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States (as added by subsection (a)) that 
        was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992; and
                    (B) before the 15th day after the date of the 
                enactment of this Act;
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
        withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
 LODGENET INTERACTIVE CORPORATION
 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
   
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 LodgeNet.
  /s/ Scott C. Petersen

Scott C. PetersenChief Executive Officer/s/ Gary H. Ritondaro

Gary H. RitondaroChief Financial Officer
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures

Appendix C: Resolution of Reasonable Accommodation Request

1. Name of individual requesting reasonable accommodation:

2. Accommodation(s) requested:

3. Accommodation(s) are:

 ___ Approved as originally requested

 ___ Approved with alternative/modified accommodation

 ___ Denied

4. Number of days to process request:

1. If the accommodation was Approved:

 The expected duration is _______________.

 Is this a repeat accommodation? __Y __N

2. If the accommodation was denied, the reason is (may check more than one):

• Requester does not have a Rehabilitation Act Disability ☐

• Accommodation would be ineffective ☐

• Accommodation would cause undue hardship ☐

• Medical documentation inadequate ☐

• Accommodation would require removal of essential ☐

function of the position

• Accommodation would require lowering performance ☐

or production standard

• Other (please identify) _______________________ ☐

 Describe reason(s) for denial in detail (e.g., why the accommodation 

 would be ineffective or cause undue hardship):

Appendix C: Page 1
3. If an alternative accommodation was offered, indicate whether it was:

 ___ Accepted ___ Rejected

 And explain (a) the reason(s) for the denial of the accommodation as originally 

 requested; and (b) why the alternative accommodation would be effective.

Reconsideration and Appeal: 

An individual who disagrees with the resolution of the request may ask the Chairman to 

reconsider that decision within 10 business days of receiving this “Resolution” form. 

Note that requesting consideration does not extend the time limits for initiating 

administrative or statutory claims.

If an individual is dissatisfied with the resolution and wishes to pursue administrative or 

statutory claims, he or she must take the following steps:

• For an EEO complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614, contact the Commission’s 

EEO Director within 45 days of receipt of this form or a verbal response to the 

accommodation request (whichever comes first); or 

• For adverse actions over which the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) 

has jurisdiction, initiate an appeal to the MSPB within 30 days of an appealable 

adverse action as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3.

Signature of Deciding Official (DPC):

Date:

Appendix C: Page 2
Exhibit
3.6





CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT


OF


CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION


OF


MERRIMAN
CURHAN FORD GROUP, INC.





Merriman
Curhan Ford Group, Inc. (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:




I. 
That the Board of Directors of the Corporation has duly adopted a resolution
proposing and declaring advisable an Amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation changing the name of the Corporation to
“Merriman Holdings, Inc.” The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is
as follows:




RESOLVED,
that the Certificate of Incorporation of Merriman Curhan Ford Group, Inc. be
amended effective as of 12:01 a.m. August 16, 2010 by changing the Article
thereof numbered “FIRST” so that, as amended, said Article shall be and be read
as follows:




FIRST:
The name of this corporation is Merriman Holdings, Inc.




II. 
That on August 10, 2010, the aforesaid amendments were duly adopted by
shareholder vote in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 242 and
Section 211 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be
signed by its authorized officer this 10th day of August, 2010.





By:
            /s/
      D. Jonathan MerrimanD.
      Jonathan MerrimanChief
      Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED  BALANCE  SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998,  AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH 31,  1998,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                    7,572    
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0    
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0    
<INVENTORY>                                         0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                7,572    
<PP&E>                                              0    
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 76,604    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0    
<BONDS>                                             0    
<COMMON>                                            0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0    
<PREFERRED>                                         0    
<OTHER-SE>                                     76,162    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   76,604    
<SALES>                                         3,919    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,985    
<CGS>                                               0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  208    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,777    
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,777    
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0    
<CHANGES>                                           0    
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,777    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       4.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0    
                                               


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, also known as Noe Martinez-Rodriguez, also known as Noe M. Rodriguez, also known as Noe Martinez, also known as Noe Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50554

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 29, 2014.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory L. Ahlgren, Esq., Ahlgren Law Firm, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*289PER CURIAM: *

Noe Rodriguez-Martinez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of probation. He argues that the sentence, which is below the 10-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3565(b)(1), is plainly unreasonable. He asserts that a sentence within the policy statement range of 6 to 12 months of imprisonment would have been sufficient punishment given that he spent most of his life in the United States and assimilated into American culture. He further argues that if he had “been given the opportunity to freely and fully exercise his right to allocute (instead of being told to be quiet by the court),” he would have been better able to explain these mitigating circumstances. Because he raises these issues for the first time on appeal, our review is for plain error only. *See United States v. Kippers,*685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir.2012).

The record reflects that the district court gave Rodriguez-Martinez an opportunity to speak in mitigation of his sentence before imposing sentence. *See*Fed. R.CRIM.P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii); *United States v. Reyna,*358 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir.2004) (en banc). Although the district court told Rodriguez-Martinez to “be quiet,” the admonishment came after the district court had already imposed sentence and after Rodriguez-Martinez had already explained at length his personal history and circumstances, including his ties to the United States. Moreover, Rodriguez-Martinez fails to raise any facts in his brief that were not considered by the district court during the revocation proceedings or to set forth the facts that would have been brought to light if he had been permitted to continue to speak after the sentence was imposed. Accordingly, we find no plain error.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *290the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 UNI-MARTS INC.

                            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 Uni-Marts Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry D. Sahakian,
Chairman and 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.

Date: December 22, 2003                                /S/ HENRY D. SAHAKIAN
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Henry D. Sahakian
                                                     Chairman of the Board and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AK-910-1410-PG]


Notice of Meeting

December 6, 2001.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Alaska Resource Advisory Council meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The BLM Alaska Resource Advisory Council will conduct an open 
meeting Thursday, January 31, 2002, from 9:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. and 
Friday, February 1, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. until noon. The meeting will 
be held at the Campbell Creek Science Center, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, 
Anchorage.
    Primary agenda items for the meeting include land use planning 
starts in Alaska and scoping for the northwest National Petroleum 
Reserve--Alaska and Colville River multiple use activity plans. The 
council will hear public comments Thursday, January 31, from 1-2 p.m. 
Written comments may be mailed to BLM at the address below.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries or comments should be sent to BLM External 
Affairs, 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7599.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa McPherson, 907-271-3322, or via 
E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b0f1e091e081a242416180b131e090814153b1a1055191716551c140d">[email protected]</a>.

Linda S.C. Rundell,
Associate State Director.
[FR Doc. 01-32130 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00078-CV 

 

JARED ORT, APPELLANT 

V. 

BROOKLYN BONHAM, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 84th District Court 

Hutchinson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 44983, Honorable Curt Brancheau, Presiding 

July 10, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Jared Ort, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. Now pending before this Court is Ort’s motion seeking 

voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The Court finds that the motion complies with the 

requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will 

not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no 

decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is 

dismissed. Because the motion does not reflect an agreement of the parties concerning 
2

the payment of costs, costs will be taxed against Ort. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). No 

motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
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 Quarterly Report of Admiral Financial Corp., Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wm. Lee Popham, President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.



Dated: November 6, 2008





/s/ Wm. Lee Popham

Wm. Lee Popham President

Admiral Financial Corp.





/s/ Wm. Lee Popham

Wm. Lee Popham Principal Accounting Officer

Admiral Financial Corp.
#### In re: Larry Sinclair WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 10-2049.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.

Larry Sinclair Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Sinclair Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeking *805an order directing the district court to grant discovery in his 1992 criminal convictions. We conclude that Williams is not entitled to either of these forms of relief.

A writ of prohibition will not issue unless it “clearly appears that the inferior court is about to exceed its jurisdiction.” *Smith v. Whitney,*116 U.S. 167, 176, 6 S.Ct. 570, 29 L.Ed. 601 (1886). A writ of prohibition or mandamus is a drastic remedy that should be granted only where the petitioner’s right to the requested relief is clear and indisputable. *In re Vargas,*723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983); *In re Missouri,*664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir.1981). Further, a writ of prohibition should be granted only where the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief. *In re Bankers Trust Co.,*775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir.1985).

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988).

The relief sought by Williams is not available by way of a writ of prohibition or mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 26, 2022

NO. 03-22-00029-CR

Lamont Alva Scrutchens, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the trial court. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ALLEN TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-567-S, CA-01-4256-S) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Allen Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Lee Evans, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Allen Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Taylor , Nos. CR-99-567-S; CA-01- 4256-S (D. Md. filed Jan. 3, 2002 & entered Jan. 4, 2002). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          18,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      28,987,593
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,583,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,197,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,179,987
<BONDS>                                     17,160,332
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,701,490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,197,527
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,186,351
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  607,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             701,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (892,698)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (892,698)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (892,698)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (34.72)


</TABLE>