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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 870 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 870

 To submit to Congress a report on payments made by the Department of 
         Justice to certain companies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2023

Mrs. Boebert (for herself, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Gosar, 
  Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Donalds, and Mr. Clyde) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To submit to Congress a report on payments made by the Department of 
         Justice to certain companies, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Exposing Lewd Outlays for social 
Networking companies Act'' or the ``ELON Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN COMPANIES.

    (a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
the relevant committees a report on all payments, made by the 
Department of Justice during the period beginning on January 1, 2015 
and ending on the date of enactment of this Act, to any of the 
following companies:
            (1) Twitter.
            (2) Meta.
            (3) Google.
            (4) Microsoft Corporation.
            (5) Apple.
    (b) Moratorium.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
ending on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
Act, it shall be unlawful for the Department of Justice to use Federal 
funds to make payments to the companies described in subsection (a), 
unless such funds are lawfully owed to any such company.
    (c) Relevant Committees Defined.--In this section, the term 
``relevant committees'' means--
            (1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
        Representatives;
            (2) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the 
        House of Representatives;
            (3) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
        House of Representatives;
            (4) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
            (5) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
        of the Senate; and
            (6) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
        Senate.
                                 <all>
```
No. 57388.

protests 974512-G and 983248-G (San Francisco).

#### L. I. Gorbatenko, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
Before the Third Division,

July 28, 1943

No. 48589.

#### Protests 601653-G, etc., of Kraft Phenix Cheese Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
----

# Political Map of Croatia
Exhibit 32.2





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 Ante5, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) I, Joshua Wert, Chief Operating Officer and Former Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: March 31, 2011










By: /s/ Joshua Wert


Joshua Wert, Chief Operating Officer and


Former Interim Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting Officer)








This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Island Life Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Thony, Adler, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Law Offices of Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wahrburg, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered November 6, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the subject loss and, thus, that plaintiff had sued the wrong insurer.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that defendant had not issued a policy covering the subject loss (<a href="../2014/2014_51240.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co.</i>, 44 Misc 3d 136</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Plaintiff's remaining arguments are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or lack merit.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 27, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BARBARA HUGHES,

Claimant – Appellant,

and

DAVID KELLY, JR., a/k/a Panama,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00014-RAJ-TEM-1)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Barbara Hughes appeals the district court’s order

denying her motion for reconsideration of its forfeiture order.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Hughes , No. 2:07-cr-00014-RAJ-TEM-1

(E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wntteb**~tate~** 

# <!Courtof**§ppeaI~** 

# fortbe jf

# eberaI <!Ctrcutt
ERIC M. SANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. HAROLD H. FLANDERS, Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1394 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-0192, Judge Lee Yeakel. 

### ON MOTION ORDER Susan S. Vance moves to withdraw as counsel ofrecord for defendant-appellee, Harold H. Flanders. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. New counsel should promptly file an entry ofappearance. Case: 12-1394 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2012ERIC SANDERS V. HAROLD FLANDERS



### 821 FOR THE COURT 

### /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2 Case: 12-1394 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2012
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-190-CV

ARETA NELSON APPELLANT

V.

DAVID B. GRAYBILL, D.O. APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

In this medical malpractice case, Appellant Areta Nelson attempts to appeal

from the trial court’s March 11, 2010 order granting Appellee David Graybill, D.O.’s

motion to dismiss her claims Against him.

2 Because such an appeal is accelerated,3

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(10) (Vernon 2008).

3 See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1(a).
Appellant’s notice of appeal was due March 31, 2010,

4

but she did not file it until

June 9, 2010, which was untimely.

5

On June 21, 2010, we notified Appellant that her appeal was subject to

dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by July 1, 2010, she filed a response

showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

6 No response has been filed.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

7

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 12, 2010

4 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b).

5 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b).

6 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

7 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

2
#### Mary Sweet, *Respondent, v.*Harriet A. Seacord, *Appellant.*

— Judgment of County Court and order denying new trial reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.;

Cullen, J., dissenting.
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 on Form 10-Q of Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) for the
period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1). | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2). | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                           
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Dated: August 4, 2004 |  | /s/    WALTER W. SCHROEDER
|                      |  | Walter W. Schroeder       
|                      |  | President                 
|                      | 
|Dated: August 4, 2004 |  | /s/    JOHN A. GLIDDEN    
|                      |  | John A. Glidden           
|                      |  | Vice President of Finance 



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is accompanying the
Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20021

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ANTONIO LOPEZ JACOBO,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-218-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Lopez 

Jacobo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jacobo has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20021 Document: 00514750017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2018
No. 18-20021

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-20021 Document: 00514750017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2018
May 20, 1955

No. 59098.

Suit 4795.

#### Naumes Forwarding Service *v.*United States.

C. D. 1545 affirmed February 8, 1955. C. A. D. 581.
No. 45057.

#### Protests 592272-G, etc., of G. Albrecht Co. et al. (Now York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 48615.

#### Protests 499700-G, etc., of Kaplan Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the established facts the harvest hats in question were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664).
#### Snyder’s Potato Chips, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Hanover Canning Company.

Argued January 22, 1969.

Before Bell, O. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Beien, Robebts and Pomeboy, JJ.

*552April 23, 1969:

*Harold Cramer,*with him *Arthur N. Brandolph,*and *Mesirov, Celman, Jaffe & Levin,*and *Carrington Shields,*of the Washington, D. C. Bar, for appellant.

*W. Bradley Ward,*with him *Ira P. Tiger, Norman T. Petow, John R. Miller,*and *Schnader, Harrison, Se-gal é Lewis,*for appellees.

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

Decree affirmed, each party to pay own costs.

Mr. Justice Cohen would vacate and remand.
EXHIBIT 4.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
                                STATE OF NEVADA

    [GRAPHIC]                                                    [GRAPHIC]
                                                           CUSIP NO 23253A 10 3


                              CYBEROPTICLABS, INC.
          100,000,000 AUTHORIZED SHARES $.001 PAR VALUE NON-ASSESSABLE


This Certifies that

is the registered holder of


Shares of                       CYBEROPTICLABS,  INC.               Common Stock
transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or
by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly
endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer
Agent and registered by the Registrar.

WITNESS the facsimile seal of the  Corporation  and the facsimile  signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

                                          COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED
                                            COLONIAL STOCK TRANSFER
                                              Salt Lake City, Utah

                                          By
                                             TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
                                             AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

Dated:


/s/                                                  /s/
------------------------     [CORPORATE SEAL]        ------------------------
      SECRETARY                                             PRESIDENT



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of JOHN PEARCE, an Imprisoned Debtor.

*Discharge of an imprisoned debtor from*impidsonment— *only fraudulent acts, committed afi&r the liaMlity to the plaintiff {the objecting judgment creditor) was incurred, 'will bar a dischan’ge*— only *those who are creditors of the debtor, at the time a transfer of his property is made, can claim that it is fraudulent.*

Appeal from an order made by the county judge of Kings county discharging the respondent, an imprisoned debtor, from imprisonment.

The discharge was opposed on the ground that the debtor’s proceedings had not been just and fair, and that he had disposed of property with intent to defraud his creditors. The action, under the execution in which the respondent was héld under arrest, was for obtaining moneys by false and fraudulent representations.

The court at General Term said: “ The first objection taken to the discharge is that the judgment in the action is conclusive evidence in this proceeding that the debtor was guilty of fraud. This is so. But under the statute for the discharge of imprisoned debtors the fraud which will bar a debtor’s discharge is not that of which he may have been guilty in contracting the debt or liability, but fraud in the subsequent disposition of his property to evade such liability. The judgment in the action was not predicated on such an act and, *271therefore, cannot be evidence of it. The provisions that a -debtor proceedings must be fair, I think must be taken in connection with the contents of the affidavits and be held to relate to the management and disposition of his property subsequent to the liability, not to the circumstances under which that liability was incurred.

The second objection taken is that the debtor at one time transferred all his property to Ann Naris, as it is cpmplained by the appellant, with intent to defraud his creditors, though such intent is denied by the debtor. It is a sufficient answer' to this objection j that at the time of such transfer the appellant was not a ereditor of the defendant. Only existing creditors at the time can complain of such disposition. *(Matter of Brady,*69 N. Y., 215.)”

*George H. Kracht, for*Robert C. Manson, creditor, appellant.

*John Gooney,*for John Pearce, debtor and petitioner.

Opinion by

Cullen, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Nykman and Cullen, JJ.

Order of County Court affirmed, with costs.
---

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the Company) does hereby
certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: November 12, 2010

/s/ John L.
KeyJohn L. Key Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive
Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

---
EX-35.2
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.
One Belvedere Place, Suite 330
Mill Valley, California 94941


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells
Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year 2012:

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as assigned and agreed to under the
servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing
Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects
throughout the reporting period, except as noted in Schedule B.


March 1, 2013

/s/ Julie Eichler
JULIE EICHLER
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


To: Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling Agreement for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2010-H1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Trustee, as applicable.


Wells Fargo BAnk, N.A.


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


To: Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

Schedule B

Material Instances of Non-Compliance

No instances to report


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
No. 46234.

#### Protests 38173-K, etc., of McGreevey Werring & Howell et al. (New York).

*251Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. C.t. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.