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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 156 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 156

 To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require persons 
  conducting Federal election polls by telephone to disclose certain 
    information to respondents and the Federal Election Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

 Mr. Petri (for himself, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. McGovern, Mr. 
Green of Wisconsin, and Mr. Shays) introduced the following bill; which 
         was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require persons 
  conducting Federal election polls by telephone to disclose certain 
    information to respondents and the Federal Election Commission.

    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 ``Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE AND REPORTS RELATING TO POLLING BY TELEPHONE OR 
              ELECTRONIC DEVICE.

    (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``disclosure and reports relating to polling by telephone or electronic 
                                 device

    ``Sec. 325. (a) Disclosure to Respondents.--Any person who conducts 
a Federal election poll by telephone or electronic device shall 
disclose to each respondent the identity of the person paying the 
expenses of the poll. The disclosure shall be made at the end of the 
interview involved.
    ``(b) Reports to Commission.--In the case of any Federal election 
poll by telephone or electronic device--
            ``(1) if the results are not to be made public, the person 
        who conducts the poll shall report to the Commission the total 
        cost of the poll and all sources of funds for the poll; and
            ``(2) the person who conducts the poll shall report to the 
        Commission the total number of households contacted and include 
        with such report a copy of the poll questions.
    ``(c) Federal Election Poll Defined.--As used in this section, the 
term `Federal election poll' means a survey--
            ``(1) in which the respondent is asked to state opinions or 
        views regarding a future election for Federal office; and
            ``(2) in which more than 1,200 households are surveyed.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to elections occurring after December 31, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Multimedia Games, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, Patrick J. Ramsey, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Adam D. Chibib, 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 (“Section 906”), that, based upon each of their respective knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: February 3, 2011/s/ Patrick J. RamseyPatrick J. RamseyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Adam D. ChibibAdam D. ChibibChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Multimedia Games, Inc., and will be retained by Multimedia Games, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 161

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Nathaniel 

R. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’.

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 NATHANIEL R. JONES FED4 ERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURT5 HOUSE. 

6 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

7 located at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, 
2

•HR 161 IH 

1 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Nathaniel R. Jones 

2 Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

6 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec7 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nathaniel 

8 R. Jones Federal Building and United States Court9 house’’.

Æ
§ 1210.7 Filing an appeal and a response to an appeal. ( a ) *Place for filing an appeal and a response.* Appeals, and responses to those appeals, must be filed with the appropriate Board regional or field office. See § 1201.4(d) of this chapter.
( b ) *Time for filing an appeal and agency response.* An appeal of an action taken pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 713 must be filed no later than 7 days after the effective date of the removal or transfer being appealed. (38 U.S.C. 713(d)(2)(B)). An agency response must be filed within 3 days of the filing of the appeal.
( c ) *Timeliness of appeals.* If an appellant does not submit an appeal within 7 days of the effective date of the action it will be dismissed as untimely filed. This deadline cannot be extended for any reason. (38 U.S.C. 713(d)(2)(B)). However, if an appellant establishes that he or she attempted to file an appeal using e-Appeal Online within the 7-day deadline and that the filing was unsuccessful due to a problem with e-Appeal Online, the administrative judge may deem the filing to have been completed on the date it was attempted, provided the appellant took reasonable steps to immediately advise the MSPB of the failed attempt to file the appeal using e-Appeal Online. The 21-day deadline for issuance of a decision will commence on the day such an appeal was deemed to have been filed.
( d ) *Time limits for other appeals not brought under 38 U.S.C. 713 .* The time limit prescribed by paragraph (b) of this section for filing an appeal does not apply where a law or regulation establishes a different time limit or where there is no applicable time limit. No time limit applies to appeals under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (Pub. L. 103-353), as amended; see part 1208 of this chapter for the statutory filing time limits applicable to appeals under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (Pub. L. 105-339); see part 1209 of this chapter for the statutory filing time limits applicable to whistleblower appeals and stay requests.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 22, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00716-CR

LEANDREW SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1376700

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated sexual assault, and the trial 

court assessed punishment, enhanced by one prior conviction, at confinement for 

55 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 
2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 

60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00233-CV

RODOLFO MEDINA APPELLANT

V.

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION AND TYLER 

SMITH

APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 431ST DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

Appellant Rodolfo Medina filed a notice of appeal after the trial court 

granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees Schlumberger Technology 

Corp. and Tyler Smith. We received Appellant’s initial brief on October 21, 2011, 

and notified Appellant by letter the same date that his brief did not comply with 

rule of appellate procedure 9.4(h), rule of appellate procedure 38.1(a) through 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

(k), or local rule 1.A. We directed Appellant to file an amended brief within ten 

days. 

We received Appellant’s amended brief on October 31, 2011, and we 

notified Appellant on November 2, 2011, that his first amended brief still did not 

comply with rules of appellate procedure 9.4(h) or 38.1(d), (f), (g), and (i). See 

Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(h), 38.1. We stated that failure to file a second amended 

brief in compliance with rules 9.4 and 38.1 could result in striking the brief and 

amended brief, waiver of non-complying points, or dismissal of the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3.

We received Appellant’s second amended brief on November 14, 2011. 

Because Appellant’s second amended brief does not conform to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.1(d), (g), and (i), we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 8, 2011
### §69a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 69a was editorially reclassified as section 6514 of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 69a, Pub. L. 95–94, title I, §105, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 661, provided for expenditure of $1,000 during any fiscal year to conduct orientation seminars for new Senators and their staffs, prior to repeal, effective July 1, 1979, by Pub. L. 96–38, title I, §107(b), July 25, 1979, 93 Stat. 113.
#### § 191.191 Purpose.

This subpart sets forth the requirements for the Customs drawback compliance program in which claimants and other parties in interest, including Customs brokers, may participate after being certified by Customs. Participation in the program is voluntary. Under the program, Customs is required to inform potential drawback claimants and related parties clearly about their rights and obligations under the drawback law and regulations. Reduced penalties and/or warning letters may be issued once a party has been certified for the program, and is in general compliance with the appropriate procedures and requirements thereof.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-02-048 July 18, 2002

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

WILLIAM RAYMOND NAMED NRC SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR 

AT PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have appointed William J.

Raymond as the new Senior Resident Inspector at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant. He joins Resident

Inspector Russell Arrighi at the Plymouth, Mass., plant. 

Raymond succeeds Richard Laura, who was selected for a position at NRC headquarters in

Rockville, Md.

Raymond began his NRC career as a reactor engineer in the NRC’s Region I office in King of

Prussia in 1975. He was a member of the NRC’s Onsite Support Group following the accident at Three

Mile Island in 1979. He has been the Senior Resident Inspector at the Haddam Neck nuclear plant in

Haddam, Conn., Millstone Station in Waterford, Conn., Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt., Yankee

Rowe, in Rowe, Mass., and most recently at Indian Point 2 in Buchanan, N.Y. He also worked in the

Regional Office as a Senior Reactor engineer in the Division of Reactor Safety. In 1985 and in 2002, 

Raymond was awarded the "NRC Meritorious Service Award" for his performance as a resident

inspector. 

Prior to joining the NRC, Raymond worked for Babcock and Wilcox Company as a lead startup

engineer at Three Mile Island Unit 1; and as a startup engineer at Oconee 1and 2 near Seneca, S.C. He

also worked as a reactor operator/research associate at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University. 

He earned a bachelor of science degree in physics from Fairfield University (Fairfield, Conn.),

and a masters in nuclear science and engineering from Virginia Tech. He also attended the graduate

liberal studies program at Wesleyan College in Conn. 

Raymond is married to the former Maureen Gannon of Hartford, Conn. They have three sons. 

He volunteers his time with the Boy Scouts of America. 

The Pilgrim resident inspectors can be reached at 508/747-0565.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 141

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.81 Invoice for each shipment.

A commercial invoice shall be presented for each shipment of merchandise at the time the entry summary is filed, subject to the conditions set forth in these regulations. Except in the case of installment shipments provided for in § 141.82, an invoice shall not represent more than one distinct shipment of merchandise by one consignor to one consignee by one vessel or conveyance.

[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17447, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-53, 43 FR 6069, Feb. 13, 1978; T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46820, Aug. 9, 1979; T.D. 85-39, 50 FR 9612, Mar. 11, 1985; T.D. 93-66, 58 FR 44130, Aug. 19, 1993]
#### Brant *vs.*Clark and Minton.

1. The fact that a mortgagee joins with his mortgagor as surety in a bond given by the latter to a party taking a second mortgage on the property, gives the latter no lien upon the interest which the prior mortgagee had in the mortgaged premises.

2. Nor would the insolvency of the prior mortgagee and the mortgagor, in such case, entitle the junior mortgagee to priority of payment, in the absence of fraud on the part of the prior mortgagee.

Bill to foreclose. On exceptions to answer of defendant . Minton.

*Mr. Church,*for the exceptions.

*Mr. H. C. Pitney, contra.*

*235The Chancellor.

The bill is filed for foreclosure and sale of certain mortgaged premises. The complainant’s mortgage was given tollina by Clark, and is prior in date, execution, and registry to-"that of the defendant Minton. The latter, in his answer,, states that after the registering of the complainant’s mortgage, the complainant joined as surety with Clark, the mortgagor, who still held the premises, in a bond to him, which ivas secured by a second mortgage on the property. He also-alleges that his bond is unpaid, and that the mortgagor and the complainant are both insolvent, and that the premises are insufficient to pay both mortgages. He insists that under this state of facts, he is entitled to priority in payment of his. mortgage over that of the complainant. The complainant excepts to these statements in the answer, as being impertinent.:

It is obvious that the fact that the complainant joined' with the mortgagor, as his surety in the bond to Minton, gives the latter no lien upon the interest which the complainant has in the mortgaged premises. *Gausen*v. *Tomlinson,*8 *C. E. Green*405; *Aymar*v. *Bill,*5 *Johns. C. R.*570. In the latter-case, the holder of a mortgage on real estate, having joined Avith the mortgagor in the purchaser of other land, gave, with him, a mortgage of that land and the first-mentioned property, to secure part of the purchase money of the land they had so purchased together. It was held that his interest as-mortgagee under the first-mentioned mortgage, did not pass by the mortgage last mentioned, and that the latter mortgage-was not entitled to priority over the former. In that case, the complainant’s mortgagor was not, as in this case, bound to-him as a surety merely, but Avas a principal debtor; and lie not only held a ■ former mortgage on the premises, but, with the owner of the equity of redemption, had executed a mortgage to the complainant, covering that property, to secure the payment of his own debt. The defendant’s claim to the relief he seeks in this case, must rest entirely on the fact of the-alleged insolvency of the complainant and Clark, the mortgagor, for without that it has no support Avhatever. But" *236that fact does not entitle him to it. There is no allegation that the complainant has been guilty of fraud. Minton took his mortgage with notice of the existence of the complainant’s mortgage, and probably, because of its existence and priority ■over the mortgage he was about to take, required a surety in t the bond.
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     The undersigned, who is the chief executive officer and the chief financial
officer of Community First Bancorporation, hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge,  the accompanying Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934  and  that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.

March 31, 2008

                             s/Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
### §1905. Deposit and use of reimbursements for law enforcement assistance

(a)(1) Any funds received by the Capitol Police as reimbursement for law enforcement assistance from any Federal, State, or local government agency (including any agency of the District of Columbia), and from any other source in the case of assistance provided in connection with an activity that was not sponsored by Congress shall be deposited in the United States Treasury for credit to the appropriation for "general expenses" under the heading "United States Capitol Police", or "security enhancements" under the heading "United States Capitol Police".

(2) Funds deposited under this subsection may be expended by the Chief of the United States Capitol Police for any authorized purpose, including overtime pay expenditures relating to any law enforcement assistance for which reimbursement described in paragraph (1) is made, and shall remain available until expended.

(b) This section shall take effect on July 24, 2001, and shall apply to fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 107–20, title II, §2802, July 24, 2001, 115 Stat. 184; Pub. L. 111–145, §2(b)(1), Mar. 4, 2010, 124 Stat. 51; Pub. L. 114–113, div. I, title I, §1001(a), (b), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2663.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 207e of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

Section is from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001.

#### Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 114–113, §1001(a), substituted "District of Columbia), and from any other source in the case of assistance provided in connection with an activity that was not sponsored by Congress" for "District of Columbia)".

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 114–113, §1001(b), substituted "any law enforcement assistance for which reimbursement described in paragraph (1) is made" for "law enforcement assistance to any Federal, State, or local government agency (including any agency of the District of Columbia)".

2010—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–145, §2(b)(1)(A), substituted "United States Capitol Police" for "Capitol Police Board" in two places.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 111–145, §2(b)(1)(B), substituted "Chief of the United States Capitol Police" for "Capitol Police Board".

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

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Pub. L. 114–113, div. I, title I, §1001(c), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2663, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall only apply with respect to any reimbursement received before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Act [Dec. 18, 2015]."

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Pub. L. 111–145, §2(b)(2), Mar. 4, 2010, 124 Stat. 51, provided that: "The amendments made by paragraph (1) [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001 [Pub. L. 107–20]."
### §60e–1d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 60e–1d was editorially reclassified as section 4558 of this title.