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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7675 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7675

To modify and extend the update of the Department of Defense Freedom of 
                           Navigation Report.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2020

  Mr. Brindisi (for himself, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Balderson, and Mr. Waltz) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify and extend the update of the Department of Defense Freedom of 
                           Navigation Report.

    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 ``South China Sea Freedom of 
Navigation Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF UPDATE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
              FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION REPORT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1275 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 130 
Stat. 2540) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``an annual basis'' and inserting ``a 
        biannual basis''; and
            (2) by striking ``the previous year'' and inserting ``the 
        previous 6 months''.
    (b) Elements.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
        ``the year'' and inserting ``the period'';
            (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the number of maritime 
        and overflight challenges to each such claim and'' before ``the 
        country'';
            (3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``have been protested by 
        the United States but'' before ``have not been challenged''; 
        and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) A summary of each excessive maritime claim challenged 
        jointly with international partners and allies.''.
    (c) Form.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended by adding at 
the end before the period the following: ``and made publicly 
available''.
    (d) Sunset.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by striking 
``December 31, 2021'' and inserting ``December 31, 2025''.
    (e) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of such section is amended 
by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biannual''.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________

_____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
July 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 136836 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices In re SANTINO SAGE BERSAMINA and PAIGE MARGUERITE MARIE JOSEPHSON, Minors.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 136836 COA: 281795 Muskegon CC Family Division: 03-032554-NA LAURA MCCARTHY, Respondent-Appellant,

and

SANTINO ANGELO BERSAMINA, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 10, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

`

s0722 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
July 25, 2008
Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

21 

KA 12-02147 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES J. ANDERSON, ALSO KNOWN AS CHARLES 

ANDERSON, ALSO KNOWN AS CHARLES JAMES ANDERSON, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered October 31, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 130.65 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record

establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived

the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256),

and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the

severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v

Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ronald CLESI v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 61054.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 12, 1977.

In re: Ronald Clesi applying for writ of mandamus (Parish of Orleans).

Writ denied: The minute entry and order of October 13 and 14, 1977, show that the petitioner was granted credit for presen-tence incarceration from February 5 through April 11,1975, per copies sent with this order to the applicant and to the Warden of the Dixon Correctional Institute. Assuming that the dates are correct, the petitioner states no claim for which he has not already received the relief requested. The petitioner is not entitled to credit on the present charges for presentence incarceration October 27, 1975 to November 3, 1976 on other charges, for which applicant received credit when sentenced on these other charges.
#### In re LaFaye ANDERSON v. Joseph Allen ANDERSON, Sr. Ex parte LaFaye Anderson.

SC 703.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1974.

Joseph P. Hughes, Geneva, for petitioner.

No brief for respondent.

McCALL, Justice.

Petition of LaFaye Anderson for Certio-rari to the Court of Civil Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Anderson v. Anderson, Sr., 52 Ala.App. 120, 290 So.2d 181.

Writ denied.

HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, FAULKNER and JONES, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

__________________________________________

)

In the Matter of ) 

)

Nvidia Corporation, )

 a corporation, ) Docket No. 9404

)

Softbank Group Corporation, )

 a corporation, and )

)

Arm, Ltd., )

 a corporation, )

)

Respondents. )

__________________________________________)

ORDER DELAYING PREHEARING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

In light of all federal government offices in the Washington, DC area being closed today 

due to inclement weather, the prehearing scheduling conference, currently set for this afternoon 

at 3:00 p.m., Eastern time is hereby delayed until 3:00 p.m., Eastern time on the first day that 

federal government offices are open in the Washington, DC area. 

ORDERED:

D. Michael Chappell

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: January 3, 2022
# FILED
August 27, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NA SHVILLE ALAN D. HEA D, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-980 2-CR-00082 Appellant, ) (N o. 9 5C- 169 9 Bel ow) ) VS. ) DAVIDSON C OUNTY ) The Hon. Seth Norman STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Dis missal o

f Post-Convict ion Peti tion) Appellee. ) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
O R D E R This matter is before the Court upon the stat e's motion t o affirm the judgment of the trialcourt pursuant t o Rule 20, Rules

of the Court of Cri minal Appeals. Havi ng reviewed the petiti oner’s brief, the state’s motion , and the entire r ecord, we find that

the state’s motion is well taken. According ly, we affi rm the judgment of the trial court pursuant t

o Rule 20.

It appears that th e petitioner was indict

ed on five count

s of aggravated sexual batteryand on three counts of r ape of a child . He subseq uently pled guilty t o three counts of aggravated sexual batter y. The petiti oner contends that the indictmen t w as fatally defective and that the tri al court was without jur isdiction to enter a plea of guilty.In his brief, th e petitioner

concedes that our Supreme Court’s opini on in State v. Hill , 974 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), is contrary to his positi on, but he contends th at the issue sh ould be revi sited. As an intermediate appellate court, it is our duty to apply the law as promulgated by the legislature or as announced by our Supreme Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to a ffirm the judgment pursuantt o Rule 20 is gr anted. The judgment of the trial court is hereby affi rmed. The petitioner

being indi gent, costs of thi s appeal are tax ed to the state.

_______________________ _________ JERRY L . SMIT H, JUDGE CONCUR:

_______________________ ________ JOHN H. PEAY, J UDGE

_______________________ _________ DAVID H.WELLES, JU DGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,761,020
<SECURITIES>                                   313,442
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,591,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,868,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                 895,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,004,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,892,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,004,922
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,747,506
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,270,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                476,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            476,889
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   407,432
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.03
        

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         We consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our
report dated October 31, 1997 relating to the financial  statements of Packaging
Plus  Services,  Inc.  as of June 30, 1997 and June 30, 1996 and for each of the
years in the two year period then ended.







                                      /s/ FELDMAN RADIN & CO., P.C.
                                      Feldman Radin & Co., P.C.
                                      Certified Public Accountants

February 2, 1998
New York, New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
               IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                            13,666
<SECURITIES>                      15,545
<RECEIVABLES>                     38,584
<ALLOWANCES>                       3,524
<INVENTORY>                       13,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  64,629
<PP&E>                            21,587
<DEPRECIATION>                     6,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    96,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             19,819
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                              86
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                        76,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      96,164
<SALES>                           88,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  88,062
<CGS>                             50,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     86,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    3,031
<INCOME-TAX>                         676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                2,355
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       2,355
<EPS-BASIC>                       0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.27


</TABLE>
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30071

Summary Calendar

 

PEARL HUMPHRIES; DOCK HUMPHRIES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

PERSONAL HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-1982)

 

October 28, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Personal Health Care Group, Inc., removed this diversity case

to the district court, and the Humphries appeal the district

court's denial of their motion to remand to state court. This

order is the sole matter the Humphries appeal, and there has been

no other order in this case that is subject to appeal. Standing

alone, an order denying a motion to remand is not a final order

appealable of right. See, e.g., Aucoin v. Matador Services, Inc.,
2

749 F.2d 1180 (5th Cir. 1985). The district court's order was not

certified, and the Humphries did not petition under Fed. R. App. P.

5(a) for permission to appeal under our discretionary appellate

jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of

jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6136

ADRIAN RASHAUN ANDERSON, a/k/a Duke,

Defendant - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00111-BO-2; 5:22-cv-00131-BO)

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Rashaun Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Rashaun Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-

83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute 

of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has not 

made the requisite showing.∗

 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

∗ The district court found that the 90-day deadline for filing a petition for certiorari 

expired on August 25, 2020, and therefore determined that Anderson had until 

August 25, 2021, to timely file his § 2255 motion. In fact, Anderson had until 

October 25, 2021, to timely file his motion, as the Supreme Court had extended the 90-day 

deadline for filing certiorari petitions to 150 days to account for the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Nonetheless, because Anderson filed his § 2255 motion five months after the extended 

statute of limitations expired, the district court’s dismissal of Anderson’s motion as 

untimely is not debatable.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,949
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         383,022
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,018
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,995
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          99,577
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            99,775
<LOANS>                                        370,742
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518,697
<DEPOSITS>                                     423,014
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,068
<LONG-TERM>                                     45,601
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,942
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 518,697
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 28,205
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,408
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   304
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                35,917
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,342
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,322
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,595
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      750
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  66
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,340
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,860
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,860
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.71
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,581
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,532
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,741
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      480
<RECOVERIES>                                        89
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,100
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,100
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-460]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Notice of Meeting

    Name: Translating Advances in Genetics into Public Health 
Action.
    Times and Dates: 10 a.m.-5:30 p.m., January 27, 1997; 8 a.m.-3 
p.m., January 28, 1997.
    Place: Terrace Garden Hotel, 3405 Lenox Road, NE, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30326.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: CDC has established a Task Force on Genetics in Disease 
Prevention to: (1) develop a strategic plan for CDC-wide genetics 
programs, (2) coordinate and support program efforts, and (3) 
convene constituents and consultants for their individual advice on 
strategic planning, priorities for CDC activities, and policy 
development. This Task Force was formed in October, and is in the 
process of collecting and summarizing information about CDC efforts 
related to genetics that will be used during strategic planning.
    This meeting will enable invited participants (individuals from 
academia, public health, professional organizations, consumer 
groups, and industry) to provide input and discuss strategic 
planning issues and needs associated with the translation of 
advances in genetics into public health action. Information gained 
from this meeting will be considered, along with that previously 
received, in drafting strategic planning documents. These documents 
will then be distributed for further comment.
    Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include discussions on 
population-based assessment functions, development of public health 
policies and guidelines, quality assurance and prevention 
effectiveness functions, and needs for professional education and 
information dissemination efforts.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dometa Williams, Genetics Task 
Force, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
telephone 770/488-7120, FAX 770/488-7197.

    Dated: January 3, 1997.
Joseph E. Salter,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 97-460 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136687 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136687 

 COA: 282209 

Grand Traverse CC: 07-010391-FH 

BOBBY WAYNE HODGES,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

1015 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 22, 2008 

 Clerk