alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 1526 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 Israel 

Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, as the ‘‘Eva G. Hewitt Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EVA G. HEWITT POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Eva G. Hewitt 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Eva G. Hewitt Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
January 8, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSSUE DANIEL GARCIA-LOPEZ, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00500-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
July 16, 2007

27957

#### State v. Laudowicz

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1528 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1528

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
reauthorize the comprehensive opioid abuse grant program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2019

Mr. Joyce of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
reauthorize the comprehensive opioid abuse grant program, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Opioid Program 
Extension Act of 2019'' or the ``COPE Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE OPIOID ABUSE GRANT 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 1001(a)(27) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)(27)) is amended by 
striking ``and $330,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 
2023'' and inserting ``$330,000,000 for fiscal year 2019, and 
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024''.
                                 <all>
```
ATTACHMENT 1: IECC 2015 Compliant Packages for Manufactured Homes

City Name IECC climate 

region

HUD Code 

Zone 

Wall Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Ceiling Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Floor Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Window Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Door Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Uo-value

Miami 1A 1 0.088 0.051 0.078 0.500 0.500 0.093

Houston 2A 1 0.088 0.049 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.088

Phoenix 2B 2 0.088 0.049 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.088

Memphis 3A 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067

ElPaso 3B 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067

San Francisco 3C 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067

Baltimore 4A 3 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067

Albuquerque 4B 2 0.062 0.049 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.067

Salem 4C 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

Chicago 5A 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

Boise 5B 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

Burlington 6A 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

Helena 6B 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

Duluth 7 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

Fairbanks 8 3 0.062 0.049 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.062

City Name IECC climate 

region

HUD Code 

Zone 

Wall Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Ceiling Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Floor Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Window Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Door Ufactor Description Cost ($/sf) Uo-value

Miami 1A 1 0.088 0.047 0.078 0.500 0.500 0.091

Houston 2A 1 0.088 0.043 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.084

Phoenix 2B 2 0.088 0.043 0.078 0.400 0.400 0.084

Memphis 3A 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065

ElPaso 3B 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065

San Francisco 3C 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065

Baltimore 4A 3 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065

Albuquerque 4B 2 0.062 0.043 0.048 0.350 0.350 0.065

Salem 4C 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059

Chicago 5A 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059

Boise 5B 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059

Burlington 6A 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059

Helena 6B 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059

Duluth 7 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059

Fairbanks 8 3 0.062 0.043 0.034 0.320 0.320 0.059

SBRA will complete the description and cost colums and provide this information back to the manufacturer for review and verification.

Single section home

Multi-section home
#### State v. Sturch.

16778

7/08/96

Denied

82 Hawai'i 269, 921 P.2d 1170
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 11, 2014

p0604

Order 

Clerk

June 11, 2014

147670

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147670

COA: 309987

Oakland CC: 2011-237303-FH

EARL CANTRELL CARRUTHERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2013 

judgment 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50628

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABRHAN ADRIAN URVINA-GARCIA, also known as Cesar Flores-Garcia, 

also known as Abrhan Garcia-Urvina,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-233-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abrhan Adrian 

Urvina-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

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

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Urvina-Garcia has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50628 Document: 00513013550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-50628

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-50628 Document: 00513013550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1518 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1518

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the exclusion 
 of Medicare coverage for hearing aids and examinations therefor, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2019

   Mrs. Dingell (for herself, Mr. Kilmer, Miss Rice of New York, Ms. 
  Schakowsky, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Matsui, and Ms. DeLauro) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the exclusion 
 of Medicare coverage for hearing aids and examinations therefor, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Hearing Aid Coverage Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING MEDICARE EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE OF HEARING AIDS AND 
              EXAMINATIONS THEREFOR.

    (a) In General.--Section 1862(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395y(a)(7)) is amended by striking ``hearing aids or 
examinations therefor,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2020.

SEC. 3. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON HEARING AID PROGRAMS.

    (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a study of programs, including Federal programs and health 
insurance coverage, that provide assistance for hearing aids and 
related examinations for individuals with hearing loss. Such study 
shall include an examination of the number of individuals in the United 
States with hearing loss who need hearing aids, their coverage under 
such programs, and the effectiveness of such programs in meeting such 
need. Such study may also address programs that are designed to reduce 
or mitigate the incidence of hearing loss.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date specified in 
section 2(b), the Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress 
on the study conducted under subsection (a). Such report shall include 
such recommendations on changes in such programs, including the 
establishment of new programs, as would meet the needs of individuals 
with hearing loss.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016203EN.01000501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/5

---

PREAMBLE

PREAMBLE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS (1),

1

RECOGNISING that nuclear energy represents an essential resource for the development and invigoration of industry and will permit the advancement of the cause of peace,

CONVINCED that only a joint effort undertaken without delay can offer the prospect of achievements commensurate with the creative capacities of their countries,

RESOLVED to create the conditions necessary for the development of a powerful nuclear industry which will provide extensive energy resources, lead to the modernisation of technical processes and contribute, through its many other applications, to the prosperity of their peoples,

ANXIOUS to create the conditions of safety necessary to eliminate hazards to the life and health of the public,

DESIRING to associate other countries with their work and to cooperate with international organisations concerned with the peaceful development of atomic energy,

(List of plenipotentiaries not reproduced)

(List of plenipotentiaries not reproduced)

---

(1)  The Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have since become members of the European Atomic Energy Community.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Form 10-K of Certron Corporation
(the Company) for the year ended October 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I,
Marshall I. Kass, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 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) and
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 result of operations of the
Company.

| |  |                      |  |                                                  
| |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Marshall I. Kass
| |  |                     
| |  | Name:                |  | Marshall I. Kass                                 
| |  | Title:               |  | Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | Date:                |  | February 13, 2004                                

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

40
AMENDMENTS
                                       TO
                            CHAPARRAL RESOURCES, INC.
                             1989 STOCK WARRANT PLAN


               RESOLVED,  that  Section  6(g) of the  Company's  1989 Stock
          Warrant Plan (the "Plan") is hereby  amended to provide that upon
          termination  of  employment  by a  Warrant  Holder  who  is not a
          director of the Company,  the Board of  Directors  shall have the
          option, in its sole discretion,  to extend the expiration date of
          any Warrant  previously  granted to a Warrant Holder for a period
          of up to nine (9) months following the date of termination of the
          Warrant Holder's employment with the Company.

               RESOLVED, that Section 8 of the Company's 1989 Stock Warrant
          Plan (the  "Plan") is hereby  amended  to provide  that a Warrant
          granted  under the Plan may be assigned by a Warrant  Holder to a
          Warrant  Holder's family member or to a charitable  trust created
          by the Warrant Holder. For purposes of this Section and the Plan,
          the term family  member  means a parent,  child,  grandparent  or
          spouse.
# L_2005064EN.01005501.xml

| 10.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 64/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 64/55

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 129/2004

of 24 September 2004

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 109/2004 of 9 July 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 109/2004 of 9 July 2004 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2003/127/EC of 23 December 2003 amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2003/127/EC of 23 December 2003 amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 24c (Council Directive 1999/37/EC) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32003 L 0127: Commission Directive 2003/127/EC of 23 December 2003 (OJ L 10, 16.1.2004, p. 29).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32003 L 0127: Commission Directive 2003/127/EC of 23 December 2003 (OJ L 10, 16.1.2004, p. 29).’

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/127/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 25 September 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 24 September 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kjartan JÓHANNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 376, 23.12.2004, p. 43.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 10, 16.1.2004, p. 29.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**632 KA 13-00310**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEONARD LEE BURDEN, ALSO KNOWN AS LB, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JAMES S. KERNAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LYONS (RICHARD W. YOUNGMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (BRUCE A. ROSEKRANS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), rendered January 31, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in enhancing his sentence without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea ( see generally People v Selikoff , 35 NY2d 227, 241-242, cert denied 419 US 1122). “Defendant, however, failed to preserve that contention for our review because he failed to object to the alleged enhanced sentence and did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground” ( People v Epps , 109 AD3d 1104, 1105; see People v Gerald , 103 AD3d 1249, 1250). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]), and we conclude that the sentence, as imposed, is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1390

CARLA T. LEWIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE DAVIS, Insurance Agent/CISR Elite; RIVERLAND INSURERS, 

Insurance Company; CROXTON, ELLIOTT AND DAINGERFIELD, INC., trading 

as Riverland Insurers; ROY SMITH, AIC-VPIA; VIRGINIA PROPERTY 

INSURANCE ASSOCIATION INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00591-DJN)

Submitted: June 29, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carla T. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy Taylor Hague, Richmond, Virginia, Michael 

David Pierce, VANDEVENTER BLACK, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Gary Robert Reinhardt, 

KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carla T. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ 

motions to dismiss Lewis’ complaint alleging Defendants failed to properly address water 

damage and mold in Lewis’ home. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because 

the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court entered its order on February 2, 2021. Lewis filed the notice of 

appeal on March 22, 2021. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) (providing notice of appeal mistakenly 

filed in court of appeals is considered filed in district court on date so noted). Because 

Lewis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the 

appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motions to dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*AUGUSTUS J. SIMMONS

(AC 18814)

Laveiy, C. J., and Landau and Zarella, Js.

Argued May 10

officially released May 30, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.