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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 237

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 2, 1994

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the 13th

annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

5 The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxil6 iary shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the 13th

7 annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service, on the

8 Capitol grounds on May 15, 1994, or on such other date

9 as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

10 President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly des11 ignate, in order to honor the 151 law enforcement officers

12 who died in the line of duty during 1993.
2

•HCON 237 RDS

1 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized to be con3 ducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1 shall be

4 free of admission charge to the public and arranged not

5 to interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions

6 to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the

7 Capitol Police Board.

8 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The National

9 Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall assume

10 full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident

11 to all activities associated with the event.

12 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

13 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the

14 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the National Fra15 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary are authorized to

16 erect upon the Capitol grounds such stage, sound amplifi17 cation devices, and other related structures and equip18 ment, as may be required for the event authorized to be

19 conducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1.

20 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

21 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized

22 to make any such additional arrangements as may be re23 quired to carry out the event.

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 223

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any legislation that is enacted

to provide for comprehensive national health care reform should provide

for coverage of syringes for individuals who have been diagnosed with

diabetes and who require the administration of insulin by syringe.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1994

Ms. FURSE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any legislation

that is enacted to provide for comprehensive national

health care reform should provide for coverage of syringes for individuals who have been diagnosed with diabetes and who require the administration of insulin by

syringe.

Whereas more than 14,000,000 individuals in the United

States have diabetes;

Whereas diabetes contributes to more than 160,000 deaths

annually in the United States;

Whereas diabetes costs the Nation approximately

$92,000,000,000 annually in direct and indirect medical

costs;
2

•HCON 223 IH

Whereas diabetes disproportionately affects Hispanic, Native

American, African-American, and other medically underserved populations;

Whereas approximately 10 percent of individuals with diabetes require the injection of insulin to manage the disease;

Whereas research has proven that frequent administration of

insulin prevents certain complications of diabetes, such as

blindness, kidney disease, heart disease, stroke, and the

need for amputation;

Whereas sterile syringes are necessary to safely administer

insulin by injection; and

Whereas most health care benefit plans currently provide coverage for sterile syringes to administer insulin: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any

3 legislation that is enacted to provide for comprehensive na4 tional health care reform should provide for coverage of

5 syringes for individuals in the United States who have

6 been diagnosed with diabetes and who require the adminis7 tration of insulin by syringe.

Æ
Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 6546 Dir ID: 2015

- NM

- 179

- AD

Regulatory

Evaluation

Add the work hours, parts c o st, and nu m ber of U.S. registered products to the table below. When

you are finished, click on the “Update Fields” button t o automatically fill in the to t a ls.

U pda t e Fi e l ds

Estim a ted Co sts:

Acti o n

(e

. g

., I n s p ection,

replace m ent)

Do n o t i n c l ud e o n

c o n d iti o n c o st

s h e re Costs per Pro d uct (e

. g

., aircr a ft, e ng i ne,

p ro p eller, a ppl i ance)

W or k

- h ou rs

( i nc lu de

access, testing,

a n d cl o s e

- up) Labor

cost

( @ $ 8 5 /h

o u r) Parts C o st Total Costs

(la b or +

part s ) Nu m

b er of

U. S

. Regi s tered

Pro d ucts T o tal C o st

f o r U. S

. Fleet

In s p ec tio n, R e

- t o r que 2 $ 1 7 0.00 0 $ 1 7 0.00 163 $27,710

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0

. 00

The known n u m

b er of products in compliance: 

### N u m ber

Total Costs of c o m

p liance for U.S. fleet: $27, 7 10

Costs covered u n der warran t y ( if kno wn ) $ 

### W arranty

On

- Condit i on Cost s :

Acti o n

(e

. g

., I n s p ection,

replace m ent) W or k

- h ou rs

(include acc e s s

,

t es ti ng, an d c lo se

u p ) Labor c o st

( @ $ 8 5 / ho u r ) Parts C o st Cost p e r Product

$ 0

. 00 $ 0

. 00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00

$ 0

. 00 $ 0.00Special considerations for Economic A nalysis (Use t h is field to ex

p l a in a n yt h ing i n t h e Estim a ted C o sts

ta b le that w a s as s u m ed or mi g h t not be o b vi o u s. T h is field c a n a l so be us e d to e xplain w a r r a n t y costs ) :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the A D be considered a “ significant regulato r y action”?

*Explanatio n :

DOT R egulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD si g n ificant?

*Explanatio n :

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

YES* ☐ N O ☒

YES* ☐ N O ☒

Will the AD have a significant econo m ic i m pact on a s ubstantial nu m b er of small entities? E xplain

for either a Yes o r No answer.

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

YES ☐ NO ☒

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include sp e cific requirements

for aircraft oper a ted in Alaska where aviati o n m ight be the on l y m ode of transportation?



### * Explanatio n 

### :

YES* ☐ N O ☒
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3291; Amendment #3] 

In accordance with information received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated October 20, 2000, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damage caused by this disaster from October 31, 2000 to November 30, 2000. 

All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for economic injury is June 1, 2001. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) 

Dated: October 25, 2000.

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-28451 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT
      23.1





**Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
  The
        Board
        of Directors
 iPass,
        Inc
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        (Nos.
        333-107315, 333-118295, 333-130064, and 333-131879) on Form S-8 of iPass,
        Inc.
        of our reports dated March 17, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
        balance sheets of iPass, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and
        2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’
equity, and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years
        in
        the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of
        internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which
        reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of
        iPass, Inc.
 
 Our
        report dated March 17, 2008 refers to accounting changes upon the adoption
        of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,
*Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB
        Statement No. 109*, effective January 1, 2007, and the adoption of
        Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based
        Payment*, effective January 1, 2006.
 
 
 /s/
        KPMG
        LLP
 
 
 Mountain
        View, California
 March
        17,
        2008
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3059

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Conrad Eliot Dickson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

 Submitted: February 6, 2017

Filed: February 9, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Conrad Dickson appeals after the district court denied his petition for a writ

1

of error coram nobis, in which he sought to vacate a prior conviction for which he had

served his sentence. His petition asserted an ineffective-assistance claim and other

claims that were essentially considered and resolved in a prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. Following careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court

properly denied Dickson’s petition. See United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d

1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing de novo district court’s legal conclusions in

denying coram nobis relief); see also Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1108

& n.5 (2013) (discussing the contours of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and

labeling sex-offender registration as one of the “collateral consequences” of a

conviction); George v. Black, 732 F.2d 108, 110 (8th Cir. 1984) (determining that

accused need only be informed of direct consequences of guilty plea); Azzone v.

United States, 341 F.2d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (noting that, if

sentence has been served, individual may file petition for writ of error coram nobis

in attempt to vacate prior conviction, while also holding that a petitioner is not

entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved in a prior § 2255

motion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas, partially adopting the report and recommendations of

the Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District

of Arkansas. 

-2-
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company (the "Company") for the period ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Thomas J. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (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.

                                                 /s/ Thomas J. McDonald
                                                 -----------------------
Dated: September 15, 2003                        Thomas J. McDonald
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6159

RENARD SAVAGE-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDDIE PEARSON, Warden, Sussex State II Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-1126-AM) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Renard Savage-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In his informal brief, Savage-Bey states that he also seeks to appeal the district court’s January 15, 2002, order denying his motion for reconsideration and his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal. Although Savage-Bey’s informal brief could be construed as a notice of appeal, Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992), the brief was filed beyond the applicable thirty-day appeal period. Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the order and express no opinion as to its validity. 2 PER CURIAM: Renard Savage-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Savage-Bey’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 29, 2001. Savage-Bey’s notice of appeal was filed on January 17, 2002. Because Savage-Bey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Berthel Growth & Income Trust I (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
O. Brendengen, Chief Financial Officer of Berthel Fisher & Company Planning,
Inc., the Trust Advisor of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Company's 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.


August 10, 2006                     /s/  Ronald O. Brendengen
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                         Ronald O. Brendengen
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         Berthel Fisher & Company Planning, Inc.
                                         Trust Advisor
                                         Berthel Growth & Income Trust I
#### GIVENS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 12, 1951.

Pat Rankin, Stanford, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Ass’t Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

Everhart Givens was convicted of the •crime of having alcoholic beverages in his possession in dry territory for the purpose of sale. He has filed a motion for an appeal, claiming that he was entitled to .a peremptory, instruction.

The evidence for the Commonwealth, reduced to the essentials, was that Givens had a reputation as a bootlegger and that a few minutes after he was seen getting out •of an automobile driven by another person, a police officer found a bo-tlte of whiskey on the floor of the automobile, concerning which bottle the driver of the automobile professed to have no knowledge whatsoever.

Evidence of the ■ defendant’s bad reputation with respect to liquor violations, standing alone, .is1 not sufficient to sustain a conviction for a violation of the liquor laws, nor is such evidence, coupled with mere conjecture or suspicion, sufficient to sustain a conviction. Gossett v. Com., 274 Ky. 215, 118 S.W.2d 528; De Attley v. Com., 310 Ky. 112, 220 S.W.2d 106.

The Attorney General, in his brief, frankly agrees that the evidence was insufficient.

The'motion for an appeal is granted, and the judgment is reversed with directions to grant a new trial. If, upon a new trial, the evidence is the same, the court will direct a verdict for the defendant.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 19, 2019

NO. 03-19-00274-CV

Jason Sackett, Appellant

v.

Jessica Marie Sackett, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 25, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted his appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and 

in the court below.
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE TINITED STATES DISTzuCT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARK MILTON MOORE.

Petitioner.

,I'I II] S'I'A'fE OI] ]'EXAS.

Respondent Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-743-C-BK

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that this civil action should be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order.r

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error

and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated

therein, the Court ORDERS that this civil action be DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDIIRED.

Date Jtrry U 2022.

OR

GS

STATES IS CT JIJDGI]

I Plaintiffhas failed to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired.

Case 3:22-cv-00743-C-BK Document 8 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 19
* 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-60435

Summary Calendar

__________________

KHAN AHMED ARIF,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A91 541 399

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

September 30, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Khan Amed Arif seeks to appeal the denial by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reconsider its October

22, 1996, decision and of his motion to reopen deportation

proceedings. Arif asserts that the BIA failed to consider all of

the evidence which he presented at the deportation proceedings

and that there is new evidence warranting the reopening of the

proceedings.
No. 97-60435

-2-

 After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that the

BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying both motions. See

Ogbemudia v. I.N.S., 988 F.2d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 1993); Ghassan

v. INS, 972 F.2d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 1992). The petition for

review is DENIED.