alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2457 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2457

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a salmon captive 
broodstock program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Winter Run Chinook Salmon Captive 
Broodstock Act of 1993''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SALMON CAPTIVE BROODSTOCK PROGRAM.
    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of the 
Interior (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
shall conduct in accordance with this section a salmon captive 
broodstock program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
``Program'').
    (b) Program.--The Program shall be carried out in a manner that is 
consistent with the goals, priorities, and policies set forth in any 
recovery plan for winter run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River 
developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, and with findings of consultations regarding that 
population of salmon carried out pursuant to section 7 of that Act.
    (c) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the Winter Run 
Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Committee (a committee identified in 
the document entitled ``Biological Assessment on the Effects of Coleman 
National Fish Hatchery Operations on Winter Run Chinook Salmon'', 
prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) in making 
management decisions regarding the Program.
    (d) State Matching.--The Secretary may not implement this section 
unless not less than 20 percent of amounts necessary to conduct the 
Program are provided by non-Federal sources.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to conduct the Program $1,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2647 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2647

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that the effective 
   date of any changes in benefits under the Servicemen's Group Life 
    Insurance program shall be based on the International Date Line.





103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2647

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that the effective 
   date of any changes in benefits under the Servicemen's Group Life 
    Insurance program shall be based on the International Date Line.

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

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR CHANGES IN SERVICEMEN'S GROUP LIFE 
              INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Use of International Date Line.--Section 1967 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(f) The effective date and time for any change in benefits under 
the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program shall be based on the 
date and time according to the time zone immediately west of the 
International Date Line.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to amendments to chapter 19 of title 38, United 
States Code, that take effect after November 29, 1992.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           9,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,679
<INVENTORY>                                     24,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,026
<PP&E>                                         434,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 679,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,107
<BONDS>                                        599,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                    (36,403)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   679,365
<SALES>                                         84,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,304
<CGS>                                           72,968
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,585)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,586)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,586)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.83)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Phillip WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-7841.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 2010.

Decided Jan. 28, 2010.

Reginald Phillip White, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Louis K. Nagy, Office of *621the United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Phillip White appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537*U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee, 252*F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00216

- CR

J OSE C ARLOS V ELAZQUEZ G ONZALEZ

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1719081 )

August 1, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

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.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131724 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: 131724 COA: 269868 Montcalm CC: 05-006188-FC BENJAMIN DAVID WO LFGANG, 05-006180-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PFIZER INC.
AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET FOR OCTOBER 1,
2000 AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
OCTOBER 1, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                           1,341
<SECURITIES>                                     5,883
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (227)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,168
<PP&E>                                          14,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,836)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,344
<BONDS>                                          1,257
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               00
<PREFERRED>                                         00
<COMMON>                                           336
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,488
<SALES>                                         21,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,468
<CGS>                                            3,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,549
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                      00
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     00
<CHANGES>                                           00
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,306
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,581,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  213,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,795,363
<PP&E>                                       3,632,508
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,294,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,724,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,515,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,724,739
<SALES>                                        556,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               756,315
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               567,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                189,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            189,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   189,310
<EPS-BASIC>                                       7.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.72


</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A1 92 9 . J AMES P. GARY, J R. v . HOLLY A. MORMAN.

Ho l l y A. M o rm a n f

ile d a pet i t i o n s eek in g, am o n g o t h er th i n gs

, t h e m o d i fi cat i o n

o f cu s t od y o f h e r m i n o r ch il d ren wi t h J am es P. Gary

, Jr. Th e t ri al co u rt en t ered an

o rd er m o d i fy i n g cu s t o d y an d fi nd i n g Gary i n co n tem p t b u t award i ng n o at to rn ey fees

t o th e part i es

. Th e t ri al co u rt s ub s eq u en t l y en t ered an am en ded o rd er m od i fy i n g t h e

p art i es ’ p aren t i n g p l an an d award i n g at t o rn ey fees t o M o rm an i n t h e a m o u n t o f

$ 2 ,6 0 0 . Gary

fi led a d i rect ap p eal . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d ict i o n

.

Gen eral ly ap p eal s fro m o rd ers i n d o m es t i c rel at i o n s cas es m u s t b e p u rs u ed by

d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (2 ). “ [C] om p l i an ce wi t h t h e

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s p ro ced u re i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al .” Fa b e v. Fl o yd

, 1 9 9 Ga. A p p

. 3 2 2,

3 3 2 (1 ) (4 0 5 SE2 d 2 6 5 ) (1 9 9 1 ). Al t h o u g h OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 1) p erm i ts a d i rect

ap p eal fro m al l ju d g m en ts o r o rd ers i n “ ch i l d cu s to d y cas es ,” t h e i s s u e r a i s ed o n

ap p eal g o v ern s wh et her an o rd er m ay b e ap peal ed d i rect l y

, an d h ere t h e i s s u e i s n ot

cu s t o d y b u t at to rn ey fees

. See Vo yl es v. Vo

y l e s

, 3 0 1 G a. 4 4

, 4 7 (7 99 SE2 d 1 6 0 )

(2 0 1 7) (ap p eal i n a d om es t i c rel at i o n s cas e i n wh i ch cu s t o d y i s n o t an i ss u e m u s t b e

b ro u gh t b y d i scret i o n ary ap pl i cat i o n ). G ary ’ s fai l ure t o fo ll o w t he d i s cret i o n ary April 02, 2019ap p eal p ro ced u re d e p r i v e s u s o f ju ri s di ct i o n o ver th i s cas e, wh i ch i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g i a

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/02/2019
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1324 September Term, 2015

CMCR-09-001

Filed On: September 25, 2015

Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul,

Petitioner

v.

United States of America,

Respondent

BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown,

Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan*, Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins, 

Circuit Judges 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the petition of the United States of America for rehearing

en banc, the response thereto, and the vote in favor of the petition by a majority of the

judges eligible to participate, it is 

ORDERED that the petition be granted. This case will be reheard by the court

sitting en banc. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment filed June 12, 2015, be vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard

Tuesday, December 1, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs and the appendix

electronically, the parties file 30 paper copies each of the briefs and appendix, in

accordance with the following schedule:

Brief for Petitioner Bahlul October 13, 2015

Appendix October 13, 2015

Amicus Curiae Brief in 

Support of Petitioner (if any) October 13, 2015

* Circuit Judge Srinivasan did not participate in this matter. 
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1324 September Term, 2015

Brief for Respondent United States November 2, 2015

Amicus Curiae Brief in 

Support of Respondent (if any) November 2, 2015

Reply Brief for Petitioner Bahlul November 12, 2015

It is

FURTHER ORDERED that in addition to other issues raised in the petition of the

United States for rehearing en banc, the parties are specifically directed to address in

their briefs the following:

(1) The standard of appellate review of Bahlul’s conviction for conspiracy to

commit war crimes. See, e.g., Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932

(2015); CFTC v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986); and

(2) Whether the Define and Punish Clause of Article I of the Constitution gives

Congress power to define as an Offense against the Law of Nations -- triable before a

law-of-war military commission -- a conspiracy to commit an Offense against the Law of

Nations, to wit, a conspiracy to commit war crimes; and whether the exercise of such

power transgresses Article III of the Constitution.

Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of argument, the court will

grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling reasons. 

In addition to electronic filing, parties and amici curiae are directed to hand deliver their

briefs and appendix to the Clerk’s office on the date due. The briefs and appendix must

contain the date that the case is scheduled for oral argument at the top of the cover.

See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(8).

A separate order will issue regarding allocation of oral argument time.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

 BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
***NEWS******   FROM***

**Petroleum Development Corporation**

** **

** **

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:**  January 12, 2006

**CONTACT:**  Steven R. Williams - (304)842-3597   http://www.petd.com

** **

**Petroleum Development Files Third Quarter FinancialStatements**

Bridgeport,West Virginia... Petroleum Development Corporation (NASDAQ/NMS PETDE) announcedtoday that it has filed its Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2005.  The filing of the report was delayed while the Companyrestated financial statements for earlier periods.  

Withthe filing of the third quarter financial report, the management of the Companybelieves that it once again fully complies with all requirements for continuedlisting on the NASDAQ National Market.  The NASDAQ Listings QualificationsPanel had previously granted the Company's request for continued listing on theNASDAQ until January 12, 2006 provided the Company filed its Quarterly Reportson Form 10-Q for the periods ended June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005 by thatdate. Both of those reports are now filed and the Company has notified thePanel that the required filings have been made.  The Company is presentlyawaiting confirmation from the Panel that the Company has regained complianceand that the Company's trading symbol will be changed from PETDE to PETD.  TheCompany intends to issue a press release immediately upon the receipt of thePanel's decision.  

 

AboutPetroleum Development Corporation

PetroleumDevelopment Corporation (www.petd.com) is an independent energy company engagedin the development, production and marketing of natural gas.  The Company'soperations are focused in the Rocky Mountains with additional operations in theAppalachian Basin and Michigan. During the third quarter of 2004, the Companywas added to the S&P SmallCap 600 Index. Additionally, PDC was added to theRussell 3000 Index of companies in 2003.  PDC was named on the FSB: FortuneSmall Business Magazine list of America's 100 Fastest-Growing Small Companiesin 2001 and 2002.  

Certainmatters discussed within this press release are forward-looking statementswithin the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.Although PDC believes the expectations reflected in such forward- lookingstatements are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance thatits expectations will be attained. Factors that could cause actual results todiffer materially from expectations include financial performance, oil and gasprices, drilling program results, drilling results, regulatory changes, changesin local or national economic conditions and other risks detailed from time totime in the Company's reports filed with the SEC, including quarterly reportson Form 10-Q, reports on Form 8-K and annual reports on Form 10-K.

###

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

**103 East Main Street • P. O. Box26 • Bridgeport, West Virginia • Phone:  (304) 842-3597**
Motion Granted; Order filed February 7, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00676-CR

____________

RENDRICK ANTHONY CHEEKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1328385

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this 

court his desire to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1969). Appellant requested an extension of time to file his response to 

counsel’s Anders brief because he has not received a copy of the record. We 

GRANT the request and issue the following order.
2

Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 232nd District Court to 

afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local 

procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before

February 22, 2013; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on 

which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se 

brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM