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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2166 

To direct the Election Assistance Commission to make grants to States 

to restore and replace election administration supplies, materials, records, 

equipment, and technology which were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated 

as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2005 

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DODD) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Election Assistance Commission to make grants 

to States to restore and replace election administration 

supplies, materials, records, equipment, and technology 

which were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as a result 

of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. 

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 ‘‘Hurricane Election 

5 Relief Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 2166 IS

1 SEC. 2. GRANTS TO STATES FOR RESTORING AND REPLAC2 ING ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SUPPLIES, 

3 MATERIALS, RECORDS, EQUIPMENT, AND 

4 TECHNOLOGY WHICH WERE DAMAGED, DE5 STROYED, OR DISLOCATED BY HURRICANES 

6 KATRINA OR RITA. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—The Election 

8 Assistance Commission shall make a grant to each eligible 

9 State, in such amount as the Commission considers appro10 priate, for purposes of restoring and replacing supplies, 

11 materials, records, equipment, and technology used in the 

12 administration of Federal elections in the State which 

13 were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as a result of Hur14 ricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita and ensuring the full 

15 participation in such elections by individuals who were dis16 placed as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. 

17 (b) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—Funds received under 

18 a grant under subsection (a) shall be used in a manner 

19 that is consistent with the requirements of title III of the 

20 Help America Vote Act of 2002. 

21 (c) ELIGIBILITY.—A State is eligible to receive a 

22 grant under this section if it submits to the Commission 

23 (at such time and in such form as the Commission may 

24 require) a certification that— 

25 (1) supplies, materials, records, equipment, and 

26 technology used in the administration of Federal 
3 

•S 2166 IS

1 elections in the State were damaged, destroyed, or 

2 dislocated as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hur3 ricane Rita; or 

4 (2) the system of such State for conducting 

5 Federal elections has been significantly impacted by 

6 the displacement of individuals as a result of Hurri7 cane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. 

8 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

9 There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

10 year 2006 for grants under this Act $50,000,000, to re11 main available until expended. 

Æ
#### I. C. SALES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-95.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 2, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 94]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ94.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 25]]

Public Law 104-94
104th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and 
      for other purposes <<NOTE: Jan. 6, 1996 -  [H.J. Res. 134]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Sec. 1. Section 106(c) of Public Law 104-56 <<NOTE: 109 Stat. 
550.>>  is amended by striking ``December 15, 1995'' and inserting in 
lieu thereof ``January 26, 1996''.

    Sec. 2. The transmission of this joint resolution to the President 
shall be in accordance with the requirements of the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 131) that establishes procedures making such 
transmission contingent upon the submission by the President of a seven-
year balanced budget using the economic and technical assumptions 
specified in or consistent with the Congressional Budget Office 
Memorandum entitled ``The Economic and Budget Outlook: December 1995 
Update''.

    Approved January 6, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 134:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 141 (1995):
                                    Dec. 20, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                    Dec. 22, considered and passed 
                                        Senate, amended.
                                                        Vol. 142 (1996):
                                    Jan. 5, House concurred in Senate 
                                        amendment with an amendment. 
                                        Senate concurred in House 
                                        amendment.

                                  <all>
```
#### James C. HOLLINGSHEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (two cases).

Nos. N-16, N-56.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 1970.

George G. Phillips, Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); Parker v. N. C., 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970); and Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).

JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

This certification setforth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirementsof Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon orused for any other purposes.

In connection with theAnnual Report of Ezenia! Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Khoa D. Nguyen, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
| Date: March 30, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Khoa D. Nguyen       |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                 |   |   |   | Khoa D. Nguyen           |
|                 |   |   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
DENIED and Opinion Filed April 15, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00423-CV IN RE KHOR CHIN LIM, Relator Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-04421 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court is relator’s April 9, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus wherein relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to vacate its purported order denying his ex parte motion for temporary re straining order, vacate its purported judgment dismissing the case, and grant the temporary restraining order. Upon review, relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for c onsideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy , No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.1, 52.2, 52.3(a)– (h), 52.3(j)–(k), 52.7(a).–2– For example, it is relator’s burden to provi de the Court with a sufficient record to show entitlement to mandamus relief. In re Skinner , No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requirin g a relator to file “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a rela tor to file “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is mate rial to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding” ). Relator failed to file the order and judgment complained of or any other docum ent material to his claim for relief. Relator also failed to certify that th e person filing the petition has reviewed the petition and concluded that every fact ual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j). Without a certified petition and authenticated record, re lator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. See In re Skinner , No. 05-23-01077-CV, 2023 WL 8230683, at *1 (Tex. App.—Da llas Nov. 28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Further, relator’s petition lacks a statem ent of facts supported by citations to competent evidence included in an appendix or record, and it does not include a “clear and concise argument for the contentio ns made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(g), (h). The petition is also missing the following: a lis t identifying the parties and counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, a statement of–3– jurisdiction, and a statement of the issues presented. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (e), (f). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

240423F.P05 /Crai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
No. 00-6400.

#### Lear *v.*Cowan, Warden.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
255 La. 812

#### Sidney JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of his minor son, Roland Joseph, v. Harry A. BOUDREAUX et al.

No. 50426.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1970.

In re: Harry A. Boudreaux and Mrs. Agnes L. Boudreaux applying for certi-orari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 230 So.2d 352.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in its judgment.
##### 



Exhibit 21
 Merge Healthcare Incorporated
Subsidiaries as of April 1, 2008
 OrganizedSubsidiary
    
    Under the Laws ofCedara Software Corp.
    
    Ontario, CanadaCedara Software Limited
    
    Ontario, CanadaCedara Software Services (India) Private Limited
    
    IndiaCedara Software (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaCedara Software (USA) Ltd.
    
    DelawareeFilm Medical, Inc.
    
    Ontario, CanadaMerge Cedara Exchange Co. Limited
    
    Ontario, CanadaMerge eMed, Inc.
    
    DelawareMerge Healthcare France SARL
    
    FranceMerge Healthcare Teleradiology Services Private Limited (India)
    
    IndiaMerge Technologies Holdings Co.
    
    Nova Scotia, Canada
#### Willie E. SIMMONS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. N-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 16, 1970.

Willie E. Simmons, in pro. per.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the defendant Willie E. Simmons in his own proper person. *6The alleged basis for the writ is that his motion to vacate sentence and judgment was denied, March 20, 1969; that at his trial he had refused to let the public defender’s office represent him and the court had refused to appoint another attorney, outside of the public defender’s office, to represent him at his trial. He was convicted of forgery.

Boiled down, the defendant did not like the way the public defender’s office had ignored his requests for visits to him while in jail. There is no allegation of incompetence nor conflict of interest. He merely wanted another attorney.

We are in full accord with the decisions of the Federal courts to the ultimate effect that the representation by counsel is essential and that such representation must not be a farce; but, we are further of the strong opinion that these defendants, who don’t even deny guilt, but allege only some technical violation of an imagined constitutional right, are not entitled to the right of selection of probably the best and highest paid, experienced criminal trial lawyer. To meet the requirement that indigent defendants have qualified counsel represent them, this State, as has most states, created the office of public defender, and the person or persons filling such office must be legally qualified practicing attorneys. The number of visits or consultations between a member of the public defender’s office and a defendant is not a proper criteria for determining whether proper representation is being afforded. The trial court is fully aware of the obligations of attorneys and when it appears that a public defender or a member of his staff are failing to do their job for an indigent defendant, then it is proper and necessary for the court to appoint other counsel. Such is not the case here. The Petitioner was dissatisfied with the public defender and refused in open court to let the public defender represent him.

The fact that he represented himself rather than permit the public defender to do so, and was convicted, can be charged against the defendant only and not as error of the court or default of the public defender’s office.

Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Florida and Grafton Wilson, Appellants, v. Charles R. ROTH and Sandra Lee Roth, Appellees.

No. 69-316.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July 8, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

35) ll-K- (B) -23 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:49 AM Sheet 35 of 325 
P.2 

/ 

II-K-(B)-23 

GRAPHS COMPARING THE REVISED PEDCo BOILER COST 

ALGORITHMS TO ESTIMATE FROM OTHER SOURCES. 

Letter from E. Medine, EEA to J. Pratapas, EPArSASD. 

January 24, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-23
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2891 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2891

To reauthorize the program of grants for innovative programs to address 
                        dental workforce needs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2023

   Mr. Booker (for himself, Mr. Budd, and Ms. Hirono) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the program of grants for innovative programs to address 
                        dental workforce needs.

    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 ``Action for Dental Health Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANT PROGRAM FOR INNOVATIVE DENTAL 
              PROGRAMS.

    Section 340G(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
256g(f)) is amended by striking ``$13,903,000 for each of fiscal years 
2019 through 2023'' and inserting ``$15,200,000 for fiscal year 2024, 
$15,500,000 for fiscal year 2025, and $15,800,000 for fiscal year 2026, 
to remain available until expended''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEN SMITH, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-14-631

:

JOHN WETZEL, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

ORDER

June 11, 2015

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Smith’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

3. Based on the Court’s conclusion herein, there is no basis

for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

1

Case 4:14-cv-00631-MWB-JVW Document 15 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.2
  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 The Board of Directors
 Merge Healthcare Incorporated:
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333–34884, 333–100104, 333–107997, 333–40832, 333–40882, 333–107991, 333–125386) on Form S–8 and (Nos. 333–125603, 333-161691, 333-161689) on Form S–3 of Merge Healthcare Incorporated of our report dated March 31, 2008, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, comprehensive loss, and cash flows of Merge Healthcare Incorporated and subsidiaries (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 , which report appears in this December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10–K of Merge Healthcare Incorporated.
 
 Our report on the consolidated financial statements also refers to the assumption that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
 
 /s/ KPMG LLP
 Chicago, Illinois
 March 12, 2010
#### Nicholas F. LENSSEN, Jr., Appellant, v. Edith B. LENSSEN, Appellee.

No. K-507.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

May 6, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2010-1199

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM225AD

737-28A1201, R1 --- 5/28/09

737-28A1201 IN 01 --- 7/16/09

AMM 24-21-21 --- 6/15/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356

May 1, 2013

Mr. Jonathan Moritz

Delta Engineering

13 DBRA Way

New Castle, DE 19720

Dear Mr. Moritz:

We received your April 23, 2013, petition for exemption from the requirements of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.251, to modify the external configuration of 

airplanes for installation of large radomes. These modifications would be part of Delta’s 

FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) projects. The exemption, if granted, would 

change Vd to Vmo/Mmo with validated Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to Vd.

This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), was given Docket No. FAA-2013-0391. We are reviewing 

your request, and will contact you if we need additional information.

A summary of your petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, in 

accordance with the requirements of § 11.85. You will be advised of the agency's decision 

on your petitions as soon as possible. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Don Stimson at 425-227-1129, or e-mail Don.Stimson@faa.gov.

Sincerely, 

Michael Menkin

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ELAINE RICE, Individually and on :

behalf of others similarly situated :

 :

Plaintiff, : Case No. 4:15-cv-00371

 :

v. :

 :

ELECTROLUX HOME : (Judge Brann)

PRODUCTS, INC. :

 :

Defendant. :

ORDER

July 28, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Strike the “Other States” Subclass (ECF No. 8) is

hereby GRANTED with leave to amend.

2. The Court will sua sponte STRIKE Count Eight WITH PREJUDICE.

3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART. Any claims for economic losses related to the 

costs to repair or replace the Microwaves in Counts Two and Three are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Count Seven, as well as any claims 

for equitable tolling, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4. Plaintiff may, within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, file an 

Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies noted in the 

accompanying Memorandum.

Case 4:15-cv-00371-MWB Document 25 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 2
2

5. Should Plaintiff fail to file an Amended Complaint within the required 

time period, the counts or causes of action that have been dismissed 

without prejudice will be dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff will be 

prohibited from redefining the putative classes.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00371-MWB Document 25 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 2
#### James Jerry WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-222.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 11, 1969.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; Edward J. Hanlon, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[105th Congress Private Law 10]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:pvtl10.105]

Private Law 105-10
105th Congress

                                 An Act

 
For the relief of Chong Ho Kwak. <<NOTE: Nov. 10, 1998 -  [H.R. 2744]>> 

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

SECTION 1. NATURALIZATION FOR CHONG HO KWAK.

    (a) In <<NOTE: Deadline.>> General.--By reason the inability of 
Chong Ho Kwak to understand the oath of allegiance required under 
section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because of his 
physical disability, notwithstanding such section or any other provision 
of such Act, the Attorney General shall naturalize Chong Ho Kwak, 
residing at 7 East Dulles Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, as a citizen 
of the United States, without his being administered the oath of 
allegiance pursuant to such section, not later than 5 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.

    (b) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act and shall apply regardless of whether the 
application for naturalization filed by Chong Ho Kwak before the date of 
the enactment of this Act has been finally denied by the Attorney 
General as of such date.

    Approved November 10, 1998.
```