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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4123 

To withhold United States contributions to the regularly assessed biennial 

budget of the United Nations until the United Nations adopts a definition of ‘‘international terrorism’’ concurrent with United States laws, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

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

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To withhold United States contributions to the regularly 

assessed biennial budget of the United Nations until 

the United Nations adopts a definition of ‘‘international 

terrorism’’ concurrent with United States laws, 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 ‘‘Define it to Fight it 

5 Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4123 IH

1 SEC. 2. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi3 sion of law, the Secretary of State shall withhold ten per4 cent of United States contributions to the regularly as5 sessed biennial budget of the United Nations until such 

6 time as the United Nations adopts a definition of ‘‘inter7 national terrorism’’ that is concurrent with United States 

8 laws. 

9 (b) USE OF FUNDS.—Contributions withheld pursu10 ant to subsection (a) shall be returned to the general fund 

11 of the Treasury to be used for debt reduction purposes. 

12 (c) DEFINITIONS.— 

13 (1) INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.—The term 

14 ‘‘international terrorism’’ means terrorism involv15 ing— 

16 (A) one or more citizens of a country, or 

17 (B) the territory of one or more countries, 

18 if the government of any such country consents to, 

19 or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards 

20 the activities of any such citizen or such use of the 

21 territory of any such country, including using such 

22 territory as a transit point. 

23 (2) TERRORISM.—The term ‘‘terrorism’’ means 

24 premeditated, politically motivated violence per25 petrated against noncombatant targets by an indi26 vidual, subnational group, or clandestine agent, and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4123 IH

1 includes activities relating to terrorism, including 

2 training, fund-raising, financing, or recruitment. 

3 (3) TERRITORY.—The term ‘‘territory’’ means 

4 the land, water, or airspace of a country. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
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

DAY HIGH

 235

 250

 294

 327

 421

 541

 565

 442

 429

 388

 482

 410

 349

 321

 263

 264

 280

 406

 439

 485

 561

 535

 506

 463

 428

 402

 331

 313

 408

 378

 118

 110

 124

 122

 112

 110

 122

 111

 126

 113

 127

 123

 128

 123

 117

 129

 129

 126

 204

 203

 201

 200

 197

 195

 193

 193

 191

 191

 189

 188

 143

 152

 157

 166

 181

 191

 190

 184

 185

 177

 199

 183

 176

 171

 159

 168

 165

 204

 250

 256

 265

 254

 235

 236

 240

 229

 221

 225

 244

 228

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 10, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 47722

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRIAN MICHAEL TRAPPEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: June 3, 2021

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome

County. Hon. Eric J. Wildman, District Judge. 

Order of restitution, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

LORELLO, Judge 

Brian Michael Trappen appeals from an order of restitution. We affirm. 

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

While driving under the influence of alcohol, Trappen caused a multi-vehicle accident that 

resulted in two fatalities and injuries to several other drivers. As a result, the State charged Trappen 

with two counts of vehicular manslaughter, two counts of aggravated driving under the influence, 

and driving without privileges. Trappen pled guilty to the two counts of vehicular manslaughter, 

I.C. § 18-4006(3)(a), and the State dismissed the remaining charges. The State also sought 

$6,155.49 in restitution. Of the amount requested, Trappen objected to the State’s request for 
2

$1,330.49 for the Idaho State Police. The district court denied the requested $1,330.49, but ordered 

Trappen to pay the balance of the requested restitution in the amount of $4,825. Trappen appeals. 

II.

ANALYSIS

Mindful that the district court “struck [the] only item to which he objected from the 

restitution order,” Trappen argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding 

restitution. The State responds that Trappen failed to preserve his challenge to the restitution order 

because he did not object to the amount requested. We agree with the State and hold that Trappen’s 

challenge to the restitution order is not preserved. 

Generally, issues not raised below may not be considered for the first time on appeal. State 

v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195, 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992). During the restitution hearing, Trappen 

only objected to $1,330.49 of the State’s $6,155.49 restitution request. The district court sustained 

Trappen’s objection, excluded $1,330.49 from the restitution award, and only ordered Trappen to 

pay $4,825. Because Trappen did not challenge any portion of the amount actually awarded or 

otherwise object during the restitution proceeding, as he concedes on appeal, this Court will not 

consider the merits of his claim that the district court’s restitution award was an abuse of discretion. 

III.

CONCLUSION

Trappen failed to preserve his argument that the district court abused its discretion in 

ordering him to pay restitution. Consequently, the order of restitution is affirmed. 

Chief Judge HUSKEY and Judge BRAILSFORD, CONCUR.
#### Thomas S. Baker, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Yoakum, Appellant, Impleaded with Harley P. Wilson.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of China Medical Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the
Year Ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Takyung (Sam) Tsang, 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 my knowledge:

(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: September 29, 2006



|       |  |                           
|------ |  | --------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/    TAKYUNG (SAM)
TSANG
|Name:  |  | Takyung (Sam) Tsang       
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4425 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4425

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
110 East Powerhouse Road in Collegeville, Minnesota, as the ``Eugene J. 
                         McCarthy Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EUGENE J. MCCARTHY POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 110 East Powerhouse Road in Collegeville, Minnesota, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Eugene J. 
McCarthy Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### §5493. Administrative expenses of Agency for International Development

For the purpose of paying administrative expenses incurred in connection with carrying out its functions under this chapter, the Agency for International Development may use up to $500,000 each fiscal year of the funds made available to the Agency under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 101–179, title VIII, §803, Nov. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 1323.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 101–179, Nov. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 1298, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5401 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Administrative Expenses of Agency for International Development for Fiscal Year 1991; Supersedure of Section

Pub. L. 101–513, title II, (d), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1994, provided that: "Up to $1,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading ["Assistance for Eastern Europe"] may be used for the administrative expenses incurred by the Agency for International Development in connection with administering programs for Eastern Europe: Provided, That the authority of this subsection shall supersede for fiscal year 1991 the provisions of section 803 of the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989 [22 U.S.C. 5493].
§ 418.3220 When is your application considered filed? ( a ) *General rule.* We consider an application for a subsidy as described in § 418.3210 to be filed with us on the day it is received by either one of our employees at one of our offices or by one of our employees who is authorized to receive it at a place other than one of our offices or it is considered filed on the day it is submitted electronically through our Internet Web site. If a State Medicaid agency forwards to us a subsidy application that you gave to it, we will consider the date you submitted that application to the State Medicaid agency as the filing date. (See 42 CFR 423.774 for applications filed with a State Medicaid agency.)
( b ) *Exceptions.* ( 1 ) When we receive an application that is mailed, we will assume that we received it 5 days earlier (unless you can show us that you did not receive it within the 5 days) and use the earlier date as the application filing date if it would result in another month of subsidy eligibility.
( 2 ) We may consider an application to be filed on the date a written or oral inquiry about your subsidy eligibility is made, or the date we receive a partially completed Internet subsidy application from our Internet Web site where the requirements set forth in § 418.3230 are met.
### §4071f. Government contributions

(a) Each agency employing any participant shall contribute to the Fund the amount computed in a manner similar to that used under section 8423(a) of title 5 pursuant to determinations of the normal cost percentage for the Foreign Service Pension System by the Secretary of State.

(b)(1) The Secretary of State shall compute the amount of the supplemental liability of the Fund as of the close of each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1987. The amount of any such supplemental liability shall be amortized in 30 equal annual installments with interest computed at the rate used in the most recent valuation of the System.

(2) At the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the amount of the installment computed under this subsection for such year.

(3) Before closing the accounts for a fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall credit to the Fund, as a Government contribution, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, the amount under paragraph (2) of this subsection for such year.

(c)(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), for purposes of any period in any year beginning after December 31, 2013, the normal-cost percentage under this section shall be determined and applied as if section 402(b) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 had not been enacted.

(2) Any contributions under this section in excess of the amounts which (but for paragraph (1)) would otherwise have been payable shall be applied toward reducing the unfunded liability of the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System.

(3) After the unfunded liability of the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System has been eliminated, as determined by the Secretary of State, Government contributions under this section shall be determined and made disregarding this subsection.

(Pub. L. 96–465, title I, §857, as added Pub. L. 99–335, title IV, §415, June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 618; amended Pub. L. 113–67, div. A, title IV, §402(c), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1185.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 402(b) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, referred to in subsec. (c)(1), is section 402(b) of div. A of Pub. L. 113–67, which amended section 4071e of this title.

#### Amendments

2013—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 113–67 added subsec. (c).
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 Earth Energy Reserves, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year end December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, James E. Hogue, 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/James E. Hogue
-----------------------------
James E. Hogue
Chief Executive Officer

April 10, 2007




        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 Earth Energy Reserves, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, John Malone, 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:
            (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/John Malone
-----------------------------
John Malone
Chief Financial Officer

April 10, 2007
#### James W. Wharf *v.*Thomas W. Roberts.

*Fraud—representations not known to be untrue.*A party procuring another to accept an agency of an insurance company, will not be liable to the latter from the mere fact that his written representations as to what the company would do turn out to be untrue. It must appear that he knew their falsity, and the other party relied upon the same, and sustained damage in consequence thereof.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Charles S. Zane, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Hay, Greene & Littler, for the appellant.

Messrs. Patton *&*Lanphier, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an action on the case for fraud, brought by Eoberts against Wharf. The fraud charged is, that Wharf falsely and fraudulently made divers representations to Eoberts, as an inducement to Eoberts to accept the position of an insurance agent, and to procure parties to take policies. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The evidence of such representations consists entirely in letters written by Wharf to Eoberts. There is really no question of law presented in this case. It is simply a question of fact whether Wharf did make any false representations of the kind mentioned to Eoberts, and if so, whether he knew them to be false at the time they were made, and whether Eoberts relied upon them, and suffered damage thereby.

After a careful examination of the testimony in the case, and a comparison of the statements contained in the letters with the facts as they are shown by the testimony, we do not find any evidence tending to charge defendant with having made any such false representations. That he encouraged Rob*427erts to believe that the insurance company, for which he was an agent, would make loans more freely than it afterwards turned out that they did, there seems to be no doubt; but there is no evidence whatever tending to show that, at the time he gave such encouragement, he did not believe that it was well founded. The fact that he was mistaken as to what the company would do, does not charge him with fraud. He never pretended that he had the control of that subject in behalf of the company, in any letter that he has written.

The verdict is not supported by the proofs, and a new trial ought to have been granted.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
#### In the Matter of George Robinson, an Attorney.

*Attorney*and, *client*— *disbarment.*

Charges preferred by the New York County Lawyers’ Association against the respondent for professional misconduct.

Ingraham, P. J.:

The charges in this case relate to two clients by whom the respondent had been retained to procure divorces and to perform other professional services. These charges show persistent misrepresentations by the respondent to his clients, a charge for services which he never performed, misapplication of his clients’ money, false statements *845to his clients and a general neglect of his clients’ interests. The referee, after a thorough investigation, in a detailed and careful report, has found the charges against the respondent sustained, and with that report we concur. It is useless to detail the facts in this case as they are set forth in full in the referee’s report. There is presented an extreme case of a lawyer undertaking to perform services for his clients, for which he was paid and which he neglected for years with continued misrepresentations in relation thereto, getting money from his clients for fictitious claims for disbursements and expenses, failing to render any services of any value to his clients, and generally failing in the performance of his duties to his clients and to the court. The respondent’s explanations are frivolous and were expressly disbelieved by the referee. The respondent has been a lawyer for upwards of twenty-five years. His whole conduct is unprofessional and shows an entire disregard for the interest of his clients, and it is clear that a man guilty of the practice detailed in the referee’s report should not remain a member of the profession. The respondent is, therefore, disbarred. McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ., concurred. Respondent disbarred. Order to be settled on notice.
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

DAY HIGH

 159

 157

 149

 151

 145

 152

 146

 142

 141

 140

 141

 140

 141

 145

 146

 151

 150

 152

 153

 160

 168

 163

 162

 163

 164

 164

 167

 162

 121

 115

 111

 109

 113

 106

 104

 103

 105

 105

 106

 107

 110

 120

 125

 127

 131

 131

 133

 137

 139

 139

 141

 139

 146

 134

 130

 129

 141

 138

 129

 130

 126

 130

 129

 125

 127

 125

 127

 125

 129

 136

 136

 140

 143

 145

 146

 149

 155

 155

 156

 157

 158

 158

 153

 150

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 7, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### §283cc. Applicability of Bretton Woods Agreements Act

The provisions of section 286b of this title shall apply with respect to the Corporation to the same extent as with respect to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund.

(Pub. L. 98–473, title I, §101(1) [title I], Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1884, 1885; Pub. L. 101–240, title V, §541(e)(3), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2518.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 204 of title II of S. 2416, Ninety-eighth Congress, as introduced Mar. 13, 1984, and enacted into law by Pub. L. 98–473.

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–240 struck out at end "Reports with respect to the Corporation under paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b) of section 286b of this title shall be included in the first and subsequent reports made thereunder after the United States accepts membership in the Corporation."
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, William H. Lagos, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc.; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: May 1, 2017 | /s/ William H. Lagos                                                                           
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  | William H. Lagos,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)