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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1406 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1406

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2011

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 
  19th Street, Bakersfield, California, as the Myron Donovan Crocker 
                       United States Courthouse.

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

SECTION 1. MYRON DONOVAN CROCKER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse under construction, 
as of the date of enactment of this Act, at 510 19th Street, 
Bakersfield, California, shall be known and designated as the ``Myron 
Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate July 26, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 17, 2010

Decided March 18, 2010

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐4027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

SHANA SAIN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Indianapolis Division.

No. 09 CR 00105

Larry J. McKinney,

Judge.

O R D E R

Shana Sain owned a transportation company that partnered with Indiana Medicaid

to provide services to eligible patients.  Over a two‐and‐a‐half‐year period, Sain overbilled

for her services, defrauding the agency of nearly a quarter of a million dollars.  She pleaded

guilty to health‐care fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and, in her plea agreement, stipulated to an

offense level of 15 and waived the right to appeal her sentence as long as the district court

sentenced her within or below the advisory guideline range for that offense level.  Sain’s

criminal‐history category of IV produced a guidelines imprisonment range of 30 to 37

months, and the district court sentenced her to a 30‐month prison term.  Sain appeals

nonetheless, and her appointed counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), because he concludes that the appeal is frivolous.  Sain did not respond to

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09‐4027 Page 2

our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion.  See CIR. R. 51(b).  We limit our review to the

potential issues discussed in counsel’s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289

F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Sain does not wish to have her guilty plea set aside, so counsel properly omits any

discussion of the voluntariness of her guilty plea or the adequacy of the plea colloquy.  See

United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).  The appeal waiver stands or falls

with the plea, Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v.

Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002), and Sain’s waiver precludes her from challenging

her within‐guidelines sentence.  Accordingly, we agree with counsel that any potential

arguments on appeal would be frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Before the Second Division,

February 25, 1942

No. 46981.

#### Protest 78019-K of Sabbagh Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed between counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of finished handkerchiefs from which threads have been drawn and with threads introduced after weaving to finish or ornament the openwork, which openwork does not consist of one row of straight hemstitching adjoining the hem; that the handkerchiefs contain no handmade lace and are not embroidered or tamboured in part by hand; and that they are similar to those the subject of Abstract 44036. In accordance therewith they were held dutiable at 30 percent ad valorem plus 2 cents each under paragraph 1529 (b) and T. D. 48093 as claimed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

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

PSA AIRLINES, INC. -----------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME

On November 27, 2013, the Department authorized PSA Airlines, Inc. (“PSA”), a U.S.

certificated air carrier,1 the use of the trade name “American Eagle” for one year from the 

effective date of the merger between American Airlines, Inc., and US Airways, Inc. The 

Department limited the effectiveness of the authorization in light of the fact that the trade name 

American Eagle, was used by American Eagle Airlines, Inc., as well as other U.S. air carriers. 

On October 1, 2014, American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), requested that the Department issue 

a new notice without the limiting condition. In support of its request, American states that 

American Eagle Airlines, Inc., has subsequently changed its corporate name to Envoy Air Inc., 

and thus the potential for public confusion no longer exists.2

By this notice, the Department removes the aforementioned limitation placed on PSA and 

acknowledges the continued use of the trade name “American Eagle” in its operations.

Dated at Washington, D.C., October 29, 2014.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov

 1 PSA’s interstate certificate was last reissued by Order 2004-3-32, issued March 29, 2004.

2 See Order 2014-4-13, issued April 15, 2014.
Attachment A 

SERVICE LIST FOR MESA AIRLINES, INC.

 MR ROBERT E COHN 

 MR PATRICK R RIZZI

 COUNSEL FOR MESA AIRLINES, INC 

 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

 COLUMBIA SQUARE

 555 THIRTEENTH STREET NW

 WASHINGTON DC 20004

 

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E-36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

 MR STEVEN D. D’URSO

 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

MR MARK MAZOR

CERTIFICATION MANAGER

FAA AFS-900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

 MR ALEC BRAMLETT

 MANAGING DIRECTOR

 LEGAL AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 AMERICAN AIRLINES INC

MR PETER LYNCH 

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT 

FAA/AGC-300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591
No. 39058.

#### Protest 906865-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The exhibit is made of metal and decorated on the outside with a picture in gold and blue painted on a black background of enamel. It has two compartments of equal size large enough to hold matches and there is a slit for the insertion of scratching paper. The collector’s classification as smokers’ articles was not refuted by any evidence introduced. The protest was therefore overruled. *United States*v. *Kaufman*(14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 264, T. D-41881) cited.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6225

WALTER JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner S.C.D.C.; FRANKIE

RICKENBAKER, Warden; EVELYN WARDLAW, Social

Worker; FRANK HARRISON, Chief; PAUL BOLLMAN,

Captain; SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON

BOARD; MR. SMITH, Classification Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-398-21BD)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas McKay, Jr., Daniel Roy

Settana, Jr., MCKAY, MCKAY, HENRY & FOSTER, P.A., Columbia, South

Carolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely and specific objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright

v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Orpiano v.

Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). See generally Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by

failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny Appellant's request for production of documents and affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1548 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1548

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until December 31, 2011.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2011

 Mr. Johnson of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until December 31, 2011.

    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 ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Extension Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
    (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of American Physicians Capital, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frank H. Freund 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) 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/ Frank H. Freund
----------------------------------------
Frank H. Freund
Chief Financial Officer
Dated: May 15, 2003


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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7579

KORELL BATTLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DARRYL KING; JAN PITTMAN; SCDC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (2:12-cv-02476-CMC)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Korell Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Nikole D. Haltiwanger, Roy F. 

Laney, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Jayme Leigh Shy, Damon C. 

Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Korell Battle appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Battle 

v. King, No. 2:12-cv-02476-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 96-5563.

#### McCarthy *v.*Teta.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Summary and analysis of the ... nonroad diesel fuel pre-compliance reports[electronic resource].**
 
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011
 
SuDoc Number:EP 6.67
Item Number:0484-E-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000834570
 
June 26, 2018
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





/s/ John L. SkibskiJohn
      L. SkibskiChief
      Financial OfficerNovember
      9, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
MBT Financial Corp. and will be retained by MBT Financial Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EO 13563 Review: Interagency Comments on MATS Reconsideration Higgins, Cortney to: RobertJ Wayland, Bill Maxwell 11/14/2012 08:09 PM Cc: Karen Thundiyil

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Proposal_ InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563_Nov14.docx

MATSReconsideration_EO 13563InteragencyComments_Nov142012.docx

Hi Bob and Bill,

Attached are the interagency comments on the MATS reconsideration (a redline of the preamble and a word file). For the call tomorrow, I’d like to focus on the comments in the Word filed titled MATSReconsideration...”

There are also additional comments on the 11/6 RTI Memo for the Floor Analysis – I can walk you through those comments tomorrow at the end of our call.

I should be in the office by 9 am – please give me a call if you have any questions.

Regards, Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins, PhD Policy Analyst OMB/OIRA/NRE 202.395.7856 chiggins@omb.eop.gov
No. 55514.

#### Alexander & Baldwin, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 123515-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit
10.3




FIRST
AMENDMENT
 TO THE
INTERNAP NETWORK SERVICES CORPORATION
 1999
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS' STOCK OPTION PLAN
  
 This First Amendment to the Internap
Network Services Corporation 1999 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") is made and entered into by Internap Network Services Corporation (the
"Company").
 
 W I T N E
S S E T H:
 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the
Plan, which is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company (the "Board"), to provide for grants of incentive
compensation to its non-employee directors; and
 
 WHEREAS, the Board has determined
that it is advisable to amend the Plan at this time to increase the number of
shares available for the issuance of awards under the Plan; and
 
 WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan
permits the Board to amend the Plan at any time; and
 
 WHEREAS, the Board adopted
resolutions approving the First Amendment on February 27, 2003;
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby
amends the Plan as follows:
 
 1.
 
 Effective as of the date of
shareholder approval of this First Amendment, Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be
amended to read as follows:
 
 "(a) Share Reserve. Subject to the
provisions of Section 11 relating to adjustments upon changes in stock, the
stock that may be issued pursuant to Options shall not exceed in the aggregate
three million, five hundred thousand (3,500,000) shares of Common
Stock."
 
 2.
 
 
 Except as specifically amended
hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused its duly authorized officer to execute this First Amendment on the date
set forth below.
   INTERNAP NETWORK
SERVICES CORPORATION
 
 
 By:_______________________________________________________________
 
 
 Name:_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 Title:______________________________________________________________
 
 
 Date:______________________________________________________________
No. 96-7884.

#### Withers *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Case No. 14,689.

#### UNITED STATES v. BURNETT.

[Cited in U. S. v. Noelke, 1 Fed. 429, 433. See Case No. 14,571.]
Exhibit 12(a)

                             BNP U.S. FUNDING L.L.C.
                             -----------------------

                Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                          (in thousands, except ratios)

                                                              Twelve-month
                                                              period ended
                                                            December 31, 1999
                                                            -----------------

Net income..........................................            $  57,685
Fixed Charges
      Audit Fees....................................                   30
      Trustee Fees..................................                  120
      Administrative Fees...........................                  250
                                                                ---------
Total Fixed Charges.................................                  400
                                                                ---------
Earnings before fixed charges.......................               58,085

Fixed charges, as above.............................                  400
                                                                ---------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..................               145.21
                                                                =========
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 4, 2021

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 19-3362

J ERRY JELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

LARRY HALE, et al., Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:15-cv-00630-GCS

Gilbert C. Sison,

M agistrate Judge

.

O R D E R

All members of the panel have voted to de ny the petition for rehearing filed on December 29, 2020. The petition therefore is DENIED

.

Page 3, paragraph 3, of the order issued on December 8, 2020, is amended to
read:

On appeal, Jellis argues that the dist rict court abused its discretion in ruling against him on the motions in limine. But our review of these rulings is hindered by Jellis’s failure to order a transcript of the final pretrial conference, in which the district court stated its reasons. Jellis filed in the district court a motion reques ting “free transcripts,” but after theNo. 19-3362 Page 2

judge ordered him to demonstrate ho w any particular transcript would be material to a proposed appeal, Jellis did not try to make that showing. We
cannot review a decision without knowin g the district court’s reasons. See FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(2); Hicks v. Avery Drei, LLC , 654 F.3d 739, 743–44 (7th Cir. 2011) (review not possible when appellant did not request transcription of oral arguments or bench ruling on motion in limine).
No. 45191.

#### Protest 29762-K of Jean M. Anderson (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented, the protest was overruled.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Hastings Entertainment, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-60997 and 333-61007) on Form S-8 of Hastings Entertainment, Inc. of our
report dated June 13, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2000 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for the years ended January 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related financial
statement schedule for the years ended January 31, 2000 and 1999, which report
appears in the January 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of Hastings
Entertainment, Inc.

Our report dated June 13, 2000 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company changed its method of amortization for rental videos in 1998.


                                             /s/ KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
April 27, 2001
99-0630 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Walter SPINKS v. JAMES HUTCHINS FARMS.

No. 99-C-0630.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: James Hutchins Farms; Hutchins, James Farms; Employers Insurance/Wausau; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Office of Workers Compensation District IE Number 97-04845; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98 0811

Denied.

KIMBALL and VICTORY, JJ. would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J. not on panel.