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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 338 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 338

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to include certain territories 
and possessions of the United States in the definition of State for the 
    purposes of chapter 114, relating to trafficking in contraband 
                   cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

    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 ``Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the 
Territories Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDED IN 
              THE DEFINITION OF STATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 
              PROHIBITION AGAINST TRAFFICKING IN CONTRABAND CIGARETTES 
              AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO.

    Paragraph (4) of section 2341 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``or the Virgin Islands'' and inserting ``the 
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, or Guam''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 338

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to include certain territories 
and possessions of the United States in the definition of State for the 
    purposes of chapter 114, relating to trafficking in contraband 
                   cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
```
<PAGE>





                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.1 -
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE


The Board of Directors
Extendicare Health Services, Inc.:

Under date of February 7, 2005, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets
of Extendicare Health Services, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholder's equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which are
included in the Company's 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K. In connection with
our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also
audited the related consolidated financial statement schedule as listed in Item
15. The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial
statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.


 [KPMG LLP LOGO]


Milwaukee, Wisconsin
February 7, 2005

                                   SCHEDULE II

               EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                            (In thousands of dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    ADDITIONS       SUBTRACTIONS
                                                    PROVISIONS        ACCOUNTS
                                    BALANCE AT      FOR LOSSES       WRITTEN OFF          BALANCE
                                    BEGINNING       ON ACCOUNTS         NET OF            AT END
           YEAR ENDED               OF PERIOD       RECEIVABLE       RECOVERIES          OF PERIOD
           ----------               ----------      ----------       ----------          ---------
<S>                                 <C>             <C>              <C>                 <C>
   December 31, 2002.............     14,577           10,937             16,205            9,309
   December 31, 2003.............      9,309           11,038              8,655           11,692
   December 31, 2004.............     11,692           11,325             12,423           10,594

</TABLE>




                                       123
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,005]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 28, 2000 in response to a petition filed by a company official on the same date on behalf of workers at Maxco-Tech Designs, Inc., Edgewater, New Jersey.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of October, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-28031  Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-52-000]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Informal 
Settlement Conference

October 24, 2000.
    An informal settlement conference in the above docket will be held 
on Monday, October 30, 2000, in the Wyandot Room, Hilton Kansas City 
Airport, 8801 NW 112th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64153. The 
informal settlement conference will begin at 9:30 a.m.
    All interested parties in the above docket are requested to attend 
the informal settlement conference. If a party has any questions 
regarding the conference, please call Richard Miles, the Director of 
the Dispute Resolution Service. His telephone number is 1 877 FERC ADR 
(337-2237) or 202/208-0702 and his e-mail address is 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#daa8b3b9b2bba8bef4b7b3b6bfa99abcbfa8b9f4bcbfbef4afa9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f3d262c272e3d2b612226232a3c0f292a3d2c61292a2b613a3c">[email protected]</span></a>. If you plan on attending the conference, 
please R.S.V.P. to Jamie Capps at Williams by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9af0fbf7f3ffb4f9fbeaeae9daedf3f6f6f3fbf7e9b4f9f5f7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8b2b9b5b1bdf6bbb9a8a8ab98afb1b4b4b1b9b5abf6bbb7b5">[email protected]</span></a>, by fax at 918/573-4195 or by phone at 918/
573-4218 so that appropriate accommodations may be made. Williams would 
also like to extend to all parties the option of attending in business 
casual attire.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27765 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ABGENIX AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,366
<SECURITIES>                                    44,646
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,023
<PP&E>                                           8,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,910
<BONDS>                                            421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       181,263
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,203)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   148,541
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,285
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,499)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,499)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.41)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60559 Conference Calendar

MATTHEW A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; PHILLIP MCLAURIN; BRIMAH, DR., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:97-CV-188-B-B

- - - - - - - - - - oOctober 20, 1999 Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Matthew A. Williams, Mississippi prisoner #33555, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . Williams contends that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. However, the facts alleged in his complaint and expanded at the Spears hearing indicate thatNo. 98-60559 - 2 - Williams received extensive medical care for his injured knee, including surgery. Thus, whatever deficiencies there may have been in Williams’s treatment, if any, certainly do not rise to the level of establishing deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. Williams’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2 . The district court’s dismissal of the present case and our dismissal of this appeal count as two strikes against Williams for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Williams that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
            FROM THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
            THE CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
            SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                     3,286
<SECURITIES>                               5,711
<RECEIVABLES>                              7,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                 685
<INVENTORY>                                5,439
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          23,029
<PP&E>                                     9,502
<DEPRECIATION>                             3,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            33,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4,129
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                28,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              33,168
<SALES>                                   17,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          17,016
<CGS>                                      7,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              8,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (198)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1,105
<INCOME-TAX>                                 441
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          664
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                 664
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              $0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $0.13

         

</TABLE>
#### KIDD v. CHAMBERS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 22, 1953.

*474D. L. Pendleton, Jr., J. Smith Hays and Williams Hays, Winchester,, for appellant.

'• C. F. Spencer, Winchester, Redwine & Redwine, Winchester, for appellee.

DUNCAN, Justice. :

This action in, ejectment was instituted by appellee to recover the possession of approximately fifteen acres of land situated in Powell County, Kentucky, on the waters of Lulbegrud Creek. The Chancellor adjudged title and the fight of possession in appellee. Appellant complains that the land awarded to appellee includes a portion of a forty-one acre boundary owned by her.

The paper title of neither party is deducible from the Commonwealth. Appellant claims under a deed executed to her deceased husband in 1892 under color of which she has resided on the land continuously since that date. Appellee contends that the fifteen-acre boundary claimed by her was acquired by her father, Wallace Gatewood, many years ago from J. B. Ploskins. It is claimed that the original deed was lost and the heirs of J. B. Hos-kins, on May 8, 1919, executed a second deed, reciting the loss or destruction of the original. Wallace Gatewood conveyed the land to appellee on April 30, 1920.

Testimony in behalf of appellee indicates that her father resided on the Hoskins land from prior to 1909 until his death in 1923. Following the death of Wallace Gatewood, appellee’s nephew,. Asa Davis, resided upon the land as her tenant until the house was destroyed by fire in 1936. Davis and other witnesses testified that there was a barbed wire fence separating the land claimed by appellee and the boundary occupied by appellant and there was never any controversy or claim by the latter to the land on appellee’s side of the fence. On the other hand, appellant, while admitting that Gatewood and Davis resided upon the land, insists that they did so as her tenants. She and her witnesses also assert that the house in which Gatewood resided was destroyed by fire in 1918 rather than 1936 and there has been no occupancy of the land by Gatewood or Davis since that time, either as tenants or otherwise.

The testimony is irreconcilable. The issue is strictly one of fact, and it cannot be said with reasonable certainty that the Chancellor erred in his conclusion. Under the circumstances, the finding of the lower court will not be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed.
Order entered July 31, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01288-CR

EMMY BACKUSY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-54232-N

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s July 30, 2018 second motion for an extension of time to 

file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received on July 30 filed as of the 

date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Utah Code, Section 59-10-134, is available at: 

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE59/htm/59_10_101400.ht

m
**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 Annual Report of European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date:October 16, 2006
            By:
            */s/
              Jay P. Nash*Name:Jay
                P. NashTitle:Chief
                Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jimmie Joe EVANS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27196.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1954.

*733McCarthy, Rose & Haynes, by S. F. Rose, Amarillo, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

. MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area, with two prior convictions of offenses of like character alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $300.

Our able State’s Attorney confesses error. The two prior convictions alleged were:

(1) Cause No. 2587, wherein the appellant was convicted in the County Court of Wheeler County on January 13, 1954, and

(2) Cause No. 2498, wherein the appellant was convicted in the same court on December 15, 1952.

When the State offered in evidence the information and judgment in Cause No. 2498 the appellant objected on the grounds that the State was attempting, to use the conviction in said cause a second time to enhance the penalty. It was developed that the conviction in Cause No. 2498 had been used to enhance the penalty in Cause No. 2587.

It has been the rule in this State since Kinney v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 79 S.W. 570, that “A former case of like character can be *successfully*used for enhancement purposes but once.”

The exact question here presented has been decided favorably to appellant’s contention in Miller v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 406, 140 S.W.2d 859, and Cothren v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 339, 140 S.W.2d 860.

We recently, in McGill v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 269 S.W .2d 398, had occasion to reaffirm the principle of law announced in these two cases.

We also observe a serious defect in the court’s charge. Nowhere therein is the jury told the term they could assess the appellant in the form of a jail sentence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.