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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 286 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 286

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 28, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 334) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of Cheraw 
Indians of North Carolina, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section shall be considered as read. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         831,751
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,034,465
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,034,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          300,309
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,799,224)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,034,465
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,947,774
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               745,970
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             823,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,213,354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,213,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,213,354)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., Edward HILLS, a/k/a Edward J. Armstead, Jr. v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62734.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Edward Hills, a/k/a Edward J. Armstead, Jr., applying for writs of certio-rari and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Relator is not entitled to the relief here sought.
#### Donald Anthony GIRONDA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 42103.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 17, 1972.

Jack R. Nageley, and Harvey S. Swickle, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

DEKLE, Justice.

This appeal transferred to us from the Fourth District Court of Appeal seeks review of a trial court’s order which in-heréntly held Fla.Stat. § 797.01, F.S.A., concerning abortions, constitutional. We have jurisdiction under Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.; Evans v. Carroll, 104 So.2d 375 (Fla.1958); and Harrell’s Candy Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 111 So.2d 439 (Fla.1959).

Appellant has been adjudged guilty of attempted abortion and sentenced to one year in the county jail. His appeal contesting the validity of Fla.Stat. § 797.01, F.S.A. was pending when this Court rendered its opinion in State v. Barquet, 262 So.2d 431, filed February 14, 1972. *Barquet*unequivocally declared Fla.Stat. § 797.01, F.S.A. unconstitutional. In the opinion Mr. Justice Adkins foresaw and discussed other similar pending cases, saying (p. 438):

> “The holding in this decision is available to those defendants who have . sought timely review by appeal from an adjudication of guilt, as of the filing date of this opinion.”

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to enter an appropriate order releasing and discharging appellant.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT EPPS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

A. DELEON, Correctional Officer; A. 

SACAY, Correctional Officer, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16501 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01306-JAM-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Robert Epps appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an excessive force claim. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16501 

1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Epps’s action as time-barred because 

Epps failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Jones 

v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims are governed by the 

forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including state law 

regarding tolling); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1, 352.1(a) (two-year statute 

of limitations for personal injury claims; statutory tolling of up to two years due to 

imprisonment); Martell v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr., 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329, 

334 (1998) (equitable tolling ordinarily does not apply to “successive claims 

pursued in the same forum”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Epps’s motion for 

leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes 

v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting 

forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when 

amendment would be futile). 

Epps’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Docket Entry No. 2) is 

denied. 

AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of Golden Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended February 26, 2010, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Patty Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18  U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

     (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:     April 15, 2010



/s/Patty Townsend
-----------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon
request.


                                       24
# C_2022237EN.01001501.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León v Delia

(Case C-86/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Equal treatment - National system for the recognition of health professionals’ career progression - Failure to take professional experience gained in another Member State’s health services into consideration - Barrier)

(2022/C 237/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León

Defendant: Delia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the recognition of career progression within the health service of a Member State which prevents his or her professional experience gained within a public health service of another Member State from being taken into account for the purposes of calculating length of service, unless the restriction on freedom of movement for workers included in that legislation serves to fulfil an objective in the general interest, makes it possible to ensure the attainment of that objective, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---
#### Kenneth W. SIMPSON, Individually, Skipper Motel, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Kenneth W. Simpson, Edna C. Lynd and I. Joan O’Brien, as Directors of Skipper Motel, Inc., Appellants, v. Robert S. RAE and Ida V. Rae, his wife, individually, and as majority stockholders of Skipper Motel, Inc., Appellees.

No. 67-171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Aug. 11, 1967.

Appeal dismissed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL WEST,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MARION FEATHER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-35745

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00427-HU

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Michael West appeals from the district court’s judgment

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241

FILED

OCT 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-35745

habeas corpus petition, see Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.

2010), and we affirm.

West contends that the Bureau of Prisons was obligated to credit him for

time served in custody prior to September 6, 2006, because he overserved his state

sentence. We disagree. The record reflects that West’s state sentence terminated

on September 6, 2006, and this court’s case law supports use of that date as the

commencement date of his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a); Thomas v.

Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1364-67 (9th Cir. 1991). Nothing in the record of West’s

sentencing in the case under review requires a different conclusion; thus, the

district court properly denied his petition. 

AFFIRMED.
#### BENJAMIN BURTON, guardian of MARTHA D. BURTON *vs.*GEORGE TUNNELL and sureties.

If an administrator become guardian to a minor interested in the estate, he must do some act transferring the assetts in his hands, as administrator, in order to charge himself and sureties under the guardian bond.

The passing a guardian account is sufficient.

*Quere.*If the neglect to pass such an account would not charge him under a breach for neglect of duty, in case the administration security fails?

This was an action on a guardian bond, against principal and sureties.

The defendant, George Tunnell, was administrator of Miers Burton, the father of Martha Burton, and passed sundry administration accounts showing balances in his hands, and distributing the same among the heirs, including this plaintiff. He afterwards became the guardian of Martha Burton, the plaintiff, and gave bond with the other defendants, his sureties. He never passed any guardian account; but was removed, and Ben. Burton appointed in his place.

This suit was brought against him as former guardian, to recover the balance so'distributed to the plaintiff, as her share of her father’s estate.

*Cullen*

moved a nonsuit.

*By the*Court.

—This question was decided in the old Court of Errors and Appeals. *(State use Owens*vs. *Luff, M. S.;*5 *Mason Rep.*95; *Pratt*vs. *Northam,*1 *Kinne Comp.*388; 1 *Dana’s Rep.*514; 4 *Mason Rep.*131, *Taylor*vs. *De Blois.)*In order to charge the guardian and his sureties, for money which comes into his hands as administrator, he must do some act signifying his purpose to change the fund into the guardianship; such as passing an account charging himself as guardian. Or, without such actual change of *425of the fund, if by his neglect to do so, which in his case, would be equivalent to neglecting to collect a debt due from another, the money should be lost by the insolvency of sureties in the administration bond, a breach of the condition of the guardian bond founded on this neglect, might, perhaps, warrant a recovery. But in the present case, the single breach is, that the money being in defendant’s hands as guardian, he did not pay, áse. We think he cannot recover on this breach. If he were, it would not prevent a recovery again on the administration bond. There cannot be a doubt, that-if this action were on the administration bond, the plaintiff would recover on the proof now offered; for it shows an admission of the money in defendant’s hands in that character.

*Houston*and *M‘Fee,*for plaintiffs.

*Cullen,*for defendants.

Judgment of nonsuit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Golden Triangle Industries, Inc. for the period
ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK> 0000042284
<NAME> GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIES, INC.


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,138,529
<SECURITIES>                                    63,975
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,499,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (985,896)
<INVENTORY>                                    217,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,116,823
<PP&E>                                       5,179,538
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,356,706)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,904,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,105
<COMMON>                                           768
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,883,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,904,799
<SALES>                                        369,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               369,548
<CGS>                                          264,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               197,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,492)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,226,445
<INCOME-TAX>                                   325,803
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            900,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   900,642
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1019

To require prior notification of the Congress of anticipated commitments

of United States funds to United Nations peacekeeping activities in

excess of available appropriations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. PRESSLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To require prior notification of the Congress of anticipated

commitments of United States funds to United Nations

peacekeeping activities in excess of available appropriations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the United States Permanent Representative to the

4 United Nations shall, wherever practicable, notify the

5 Congress in advance of any meeting of the United Nations

6 Security Council held to decide whether to call upon the

7 member countries of the United Nations to participate in

8 international peacekeeping activities, if participation by
2

•S 1019 IS

1 the United States in such activities would require an obli2 gation of funds in excess of amounts made available to

3 the United Nations for that fiscal year.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and statement of earnings of Gerber Scientific, Inc.
as of and for the nine-month period ended January 31, 2000 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          24,367
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     97,683
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,546
<PP&E>                                         162,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 578,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,004
<OTHER-SE>                                     239,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   578,945
<SALES>                                        447,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               447,872
<CGS>                                          261,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,116)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,157
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,157
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08


</TABLE>