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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2234 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2234

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make S corporations 
eligible for the rules applicable to real property subdivided for sale 
                       by noncorporate taxpayers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make S corporations 
eligible for the rules applicable to real property subdivided for sale 
                       by noncorporate taxpayers.

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

SECTION 1. S CORPORATIONS ELIGIBLE FOR RULES APPLICABLE TO REAL 
              PROPERTY SUBDIVIDED FOR SALE BY NONCORPORATE TAXPAYERS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1237 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to real property subdivided for sale) is 
amended by striking ``other than a corporation'' and inserting ``other 
than a C corporation''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to sales after January 1, 1992 (and to sales and exchanges on or 
before such date for purposes of determining whether the treatment 
under section 1237(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 applies to 
any sale after such date).

                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50534

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANKLIN ROLLIN JOHNSTON,

also known as Johnny Johnston,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CR-154-2

- - - - - - - - - -

March 12, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Franklin Rollin Johnston appeals from the district court’s

denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on jurisdictional

grounds pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) after a timely

notice of appeal had been filed. Johnston’s timely notice of

appeal divested the district court of its jurisdiction to address

the motion. United States v. 4,970 Acres of Land, 130 F.3d 712,

714 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s
No. 98-50534

-2-

denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that

the district court was without jurisdiction to consider the

motion. 

Johnston’s outstanding motions are DENIED.

AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.
1 of 3 NO. 04

- 14

- 00 67 8-CR

RONJEE MIDDLETON § IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT § § VS. § COURT OF APPEALS § § STATE OF TEXAS § SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE STATE’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE FOURT COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES Nicholas “Nico” LaHood , Criminal District Attorney of

Bexar County and Counsel for the State of Texas, and files this Motion asking that

the Court extend the time for filing the State’s brief.

Appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On

September 19, 2014, he was sentenced to 27 years in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal

on September 19 , 2014. The clerk ’ s record was filed on November 6, 2014 and a

supplemental clerk ’ s rec or d was filed on December 19, 2014. The reporter’s

record was filed on November 18 , 2014 and a supplemental reporter ’ s record was

filed on February 5, 2015. Appellant filed his brief on March 9, 2015 . The State’s

brief was due April 8, 2015

. This is the State’s first motion requesting an extension

of time and the State requests a 3 0 day extension to May 7, 2015

. ACCEPTED
04-14-00678-CR
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
4/8/2015 11:33:34 AM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK2 of 3

This extension is not sought for the pu rpose of delaying this appeal. The

S tate requests an extension for the following reasons:

1) C ounsel would like more time to thoroughly read the record in this case,

as well as to research and write the State’s brief

. 2) Counsel has recently been transferred to the Appellate Division of the District Attorney’s Office. 3) D ue to the restructuring of the District Attorney’s Office, counsel has been assisting the trial division with intake and presentment of cases to the grand jury. 4) Counsel rec ently filed the following brief in the Fourth Court of Appeals :

a. In the Interest of D.M., Children

, 04

- 14

- 00858

- CV

.

T herefore, counsel respectfully asks the Court to grant this extension of

time to file the State’s brief in this case.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel for the State prays

that the Court grant an extension of time to May 7 , 201 5 for filing the State’s brief.

Respectfully submitted,

Nicholas “Nico” LaHood Criminal District Attorney Bexar County, Texas

/s/ Jennifer D. Rossmeier

____________________ Jennifer D. Rossmeier

State Bar No. 240 79247 Assistant Criminal District Attorney

101 W. Nueva Street San Antonio, Texas 78205

- 3030 Phone: (210) 335

- 2734 Fax: (210) 335

- 2436

Email: jennifer.rossmeier @bexa r.org3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jennifer D. Rossmeier , Assistant District Attorney, Bexar County, Texas,

certify that a copy of the foregoing motion was delivered via electronic service to

Michael D. Robbins , on April 8 , 2015

.

/s/ Jennifer D. Rossmeier
Exhibit 99.01

                                                              Company's Form 8-K
                                                              November 9, 1993

                                                              Page 2

     In October 1993, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York naming Smith
Barney, Harris Upham & Co. Incorporated ("SBS") as defendant. The cases arise
from SBS's participation as lead or co-underwriter in the initial public
offerings of three separate funds managed by Hyperion Capital Management Inc.
The plaintiffs have also named as defendants the funds' directors and the
co-underwriters and their representatives. Plaintiffs allege that the
registration statements and prospectuses by which the offerings were made
between June 1992 and October 1992 were materially false and misleading, and are
seeking unspecified damages in claims brought under the Federal securities laws.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions and intends to
defend against them vigorously.
<PAGE>

                                                             Company's Form 10-K
                                                             December 31, 1995

                                                             Page 10

     For information concerning several purported class action lawsuits filed
against SBI in connection with three funds managed by Hyperion Capital
Management Inc., see the description that appears in the third paragraph on page
2 of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 9, 1993, which
description is incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the pertinent
paragraph of such filing is included as an exhibit to this Form 10-K. The
actions were consolidated under the title In re: Hyperion Securities Litigation.
SBI's motion to dismiss the claims was granted in July 1995. In August 1995, an
appeal was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
<PAGE>

                                                             Company's Form 10-Q
                                                             September 30, 1996

                                                             Page 19

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings.

     For information concerning several class action lawsuits filed against
Smith Barney in connection with three funds managed by Hyperion Capital
Management Inc., see the descriptions that appear in the third paragraph on page
2 of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, dated November 9, 1993, and the
second paragraph on page 10 of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1995, which descriptions are incorporated by reference
herein. A copy of the pertinent paragraphs of such filings is included as an
exhibit to this Form 10-Q. In October 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims. Plaintiffs
have applied for a rehearing en banc.
32%

68%

Purchase Refinance

July 2017

$33 $223

Billion Billion

YTD 2017

0.85%

$277

July 2017 Highlights

SF delinquency rate is 90+ days; MF rate is 60+ days 

0.01%
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 Oak Ridge Micro-Energy, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Mark L. Meriwether, President of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Date:August 23, 2010By:/s/Mark L. MeriwetherMark L. Meriwether, President and Director
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 194; ATM Data Link Implementation

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee 194 meeting to be held March 12-15, 2001, starting at 
1 p.m. on March 12. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut 
Ave., NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will include: March 12: 1 p.m. Plenary Session: (1) 
Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Meeting Agenda; (3) Review Previous 
Meeting Minutes; (4) Proposed Revision 3 to Committee Terms of 
Reference; (5) Status of the Free Flight Select Committee Update; (6) 
Status of Working Group (WG)-2's document, ``DO-XXX Implementation 
Requirements for Service Integrated Flight Operations and Air Traffic 
Management Using Addressed Data Link'' (DO-INTEGRATION); (7) Working 
Group Reports; March 13: 8:30 a.m. (8) WG--2, Flight Operations and ATM 
Integration; (9) WG-1, Data Link Ops Concept & Implementation Plan; 
March 14: 8:30 a.m. (10) WG-2 and WG-1 meetings continue; 1 p.m. (11) 
WG-4, Service Provider Interface; March 15: 9 a.m. Plenary Session: 
(12) Review Meeting Agenda; (13) Review Status of WG-2 document, DO-
INTEGRATION; (14) Working Group Reports; (15) Other Business; (16) Data 
and Location of Next Meeting; (17) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2001.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 01-4152 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
57%

43%

Purchase Refinance

April 2016

$30 $117

Billion Billion

YTD 2016

1.15%

3,687

April 2016 Highlights

SF delinquency rate is 90+ days; MF rate is 60+ days 

0.04%
EXHIBIT 10.1









1




2









3









4









5




6
  7
  
  8
  
  9
  
  10




11
  12
  
  13
  
  14
  
  15




16
  17
  
  18
  
  19
  
  20
 
  21
  22
  
  23
  
  24
  
  25




26
  27
  
  28
  
  29
  
  30
  31
  32
  
  33
  
  34
  
  35
  36
  37
  
  38
  
  39
  
  40
  41
  42
  
  43
  
  44
  
  45
 
  46
  47
  
  48
  
  49
  
  50
  51
  
  52
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2030

To designate Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, and the county within

which the military installation is located, as an enterprise zone for

purposes of title VII of the Housing and Community Development Act

of 1987.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 6, 1993

Mrs. MEEK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To designate Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, and the

county within which the military installation is located,

as an enterprise zone for purposes of title VII of the

Housing and Community Development Act of 1987.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE

4 BASE AS AN ENTERPRISE ZONE.

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—Notwithstanding the designation

6 process specified in section 701 of the Housing and Com7 munity Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 11501), the

8 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall des-
2

•HR 2030 IH

1 ignate as an enterprise zone for purposes of title VII of

2 such Act—

3 (1) Homestead Air Force Base, Florida; and

4 (2) the portion of Dade County, Florida, that

5 is located south of the roadway identified as Kendall

6 Drive as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

7 (b) TREATMENT OF DESIGNATED INSTALLATIONS.—

8 The enterprise zone designated under subsection (a) shall

9 be in addition to the 100 enterprise zones authorized to

10 be designated under section 701(a)(2)(A) of the Housing

11 and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C.

12 11501(a)(2)(A)).

13 (c) COURSE OF ACTION.—The course of action that

14 is required to be prepared and implemented under section

15 701(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act

16 of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 11501(d)) for the enterprise zone des17 ignated under subsection (a) may be funded by the Sec18 retary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce using

19 amounts available to the Secretaries to carry out programs

20 to provide economic adjustment assistance and community

21 planning assistance in connection with the closure or re22 alignment of military installations.

23 (d) TIME FOR DESIGNATIONS.—The designation re24 quired to be made under subsection (a) shall be made by

25 the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development not
3

•HR 2030 IH

1 later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this

2 Act.

Æ
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANNES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of County Bank Corp on form 10-Q
      for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Curt Carter,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

      /s/ Curt Carter
      -------------------------------------
      Curt Carter
      President and Chief Executive Officer
      August 13, 2004
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Ultimate Electronics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
October 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/J. EDWARD MCENTIREJ. Edward McEntire
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003 |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/ALAN E. KESSOCK                                                           |  |  | 
|Alan E. Kessock
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003                         |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Description of oral amendment to Lease Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 The Company leases its headquarters space under that certain Lease Agreement dated as of January 1, 2006, by and between CROWN Cork & Seal USA, Inc., as Lessor, and Constar, Inc., as Lessee (the “Lease”). The
Lease was filed as Exhibit 10.1 to a Report on Form 8-K filed on April 6, 2006. The Lease has been amended by oral agreement to increase the amount of rented space. The monthly rent for the additional space is $1,872.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2289

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend the authorization

of appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics for 8 years, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1993

Mr. CLAY (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend

the authorization of appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics for 8 years, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Office of Government

5 Ethics Authorization Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. GIFT ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.

7 Section 403 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978

8 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended—
2

•HR 2289 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Upon the re2 quest’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(b)(1) The Director is authorized to accept and uti5 lize, on behalf of the United States, any gift, donation,

6 bequest, or devise of money, use of facilities, personal

7 property, or services for the purpose of aiding or facilitat8 ing the work of the Office of Government Ethics.

9 ‘‘(2) No gift may be accepted—

10 ‘‘(A) that attaches conditions inconsistent with

11 applicable laws or regulations; or

12 ‘‘(B) that is conditioned upon or will require

13 the expenditure of appropriated funds that are not

14 available to the Office of Government Ethics.

15 ‘‘(3) The Director shall establish written rules setting

16 forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the

17 acceptance of contributions of money, services, use of fa18 cilities, or personal property would reflect unfavorably

19 upon the ability of the Office of Government Ethics or

20 any employee to carry out its responsibilities or official

21 duties in a fair and objective manner, or would com22 promise the integrity or the appearance of the integrity

23 of its programs or any official involved in those pro24 grams.’’.
3

•HR 2289 IH

1 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS.

3 Section 405 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978

4 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

6 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out

7 the provisions of this title and for no other purpose such

8 sums as may be necessary for the 8 fiscal years beginning

9 with fiscal year 1995 and ending with fiscal year 2002.’’.

10 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 This Act shall become effective on October 1, 1994.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fernando RAMOS-CRUZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-50670.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2010.

Filed Dec. 16, 2010.

*178Stephen Frederick Miller, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Candis Mitchell, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and . IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The IJ’s classification of Ramos-Cruz’s felony DUI conviction under California Vehicle Code § 23152(b) as an aggravated felony was an error. *See Leocal v. Ashcroft,*543 U.S. 1, 11, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004); *Montiel-Barraza v. INS,*275 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.2002). That this error became apparent only in light of later-decided authority does not alter our analysis. *Compare United States v. Pallares-Galan,*359 F.3d 1088, 1103-04 (9th Cir.2004), *with Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2007), *and Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft,*271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, the IJ’s failure to inform Ramos-Cruz of his eligibility for relief from removal violated Ramos-Cruz’s due process rights, and his waiver of appeal from the removal order cannot bar him from collaterally attacking that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(1)-(2); *United States v. Muro-Inclan,*249 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir.2001) (“The exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) cannot bar collateral review of a deportation proceeding when the waiver of right to an administrative appeal did not comport with due process.”).

Ramos-Cruz has also demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the IJ’s error, *see 8*U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3), because *179the sole basis for his removal was that he had committed an aggravated felony, namely, his felony DUI. *See United States v. Camacho-Lopez,*450 F.3d 928, 930 (9th Cir.2006). The 2004 and 2008 reinstatement orders are irrelevant to the question of prejudice, because a reinstatement of an invalid removal order is itself invalid. *United States v. Arias-Ordonez,*597 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir.2010).

Accordingly, we reverse Ramos-Cruz’s conviction and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the underlying indictment. Because we reverse Ramos-Cruz’s conviction, we need not reach his arguments regarding his sentence.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

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