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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1168 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1168

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent the awarding of 
                       Pell Grants to prisoners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1993

  Mr. Gordon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent the awarding of 
                       Pell Grants to prisoners.

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

SECTION 1. AWARDS OF PELL GRANTS TO PRISONERS PROHIBITED.

    Section 401(b)(8) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1070a(b)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(8) No basic grant shall be awarded under this subpart to any 
individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal 
institution.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall apply with respect to periods 
of enrollment beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John King, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered February 11, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The failure of counsel to make a pretrial motion to suppress identification evidence does not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for a finding of ineffectiveness *(see, People v Shuler,*149 AD2d 634; *People v Morris,*100 AD2d 630, *affd*64 NY2d 803). The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated upon his contention that his counsel improperly deprived him of the opportunity to be present at the *Sandoval*hearing is dehors the record and, therefore, not properly before this court.

Based on the record before us, meaningful representation was provided to the defendant *(see, People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EM ILIO AGUIR

RE, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 10-72564 Age n c y No. A074-804-434 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 21, 2015 * * B e fore : REINHAR

DT, LEAVY, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Em ilio Aguirre , native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny i ng his m otion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e dings. Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion thede nia l of a m otion to re o pe n. Mohamme d v . 

# FIL ED SEP 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt, a nd dismiss in pa

rt, the p e tition for re v i e w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Aguirre ’ s fifth m otion to re ope n , file d ove r se ve n y e ars a fte r his orde r of re m ova l be c am e fina l, a s tim e - and num be r-barre d. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(A), (C )(i). Nor ha s Aguirre e sta blishe d tha

t a ny sta tutory or re gula tory e xc e ption a

pplie s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C ); 8 C . F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Aguirre ’ s a s y lum c la im , whe re he fa i le d to e xha ust thec l a im be fore the a ge nc y in his fifth motion to re o pe n . Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a lso la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision not to re ope n proc e e dings sua

sponte . Se eMe

jia-He r nande z v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th C ir. 2011). Aguirre ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions a re unpe rsua sive . To the e xte nt Aguirre se e ks to supplem e nt the a dm inistra tive re c o rd, a

ny suc h re que st is de n i e d. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(A) (limiting re vie w to “ the a dm inistra

tive re c ord on whic h the orde r of re m ova l is ba se d” ). All othe r pe nding m otions a re de nie d a s m oot. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t. 1 0 - 7 2 5 6 4 2
1 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3377

___________ Leslie Isben Rogge, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 22, 2002 Filed: August 27, 2002

___________ Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Leslie Isben Rogge appeals the District Court’s 1 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which he filed in 2001, more than three years after his conviction became final. On appeal, Rogge argues the District Court erred in finding his § 2255 motion was successive and unauthorized because his prior filing was found to be a-2- mislabeled 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues he is entitled to relief on his motion because a defect in the indictment deprived the District Court of federal jurisdiction, and his trial counsel was ineffective. We need not reach the more complicated issue of successiveness because the record plainly demonstrates that Rogge’s motion was filed well beyond the one-year limitations period, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255, with no applicable exception, see United States v. Cotton , 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002) (“[D]efects in an indictment do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment dismissing Rogge’s motion. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 4:22-cr-00280-O Document 27 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 68
Case 4:22-cr-00280-O Document 27 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 69
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of Groen Brothers  Aviation,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, David Groen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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  result  of
              operations of the Company.



 /s/David Groen
---------------
David Groen
President, Chief Executive Officer & Treasurer
(Principal Executive & Financial Officer)
October 14, 2003
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News Tag:
  Feb. 14, 2019 Relevancy to the Joint Force The  Institutional Research, Assessment, and Accreditation Division (IRAAD) within Joint Forces Staff College, National Defense University conducted a thorough review of Geographic Combatant Command, Functional Combatant Command, and JPME-II student feedback and have published it's analysis on JFSC's "Relevancy to the Joint Force", published Sept 2017.
 Feb. 14, 2019 Looking Beyond Professional Military Education to Evaluating Officers JFSC Students at the Joint and Combined Warfighting School, National Defense University during JPME-II published, "Looking Beyond Professional Military Education to Evaluating Officers" online in War on the Rocks, 8 Aug 2018.
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
10/8/2015 10/9/2015 10/12/2015 10/13/2015 10/14/2015

Treasury Bills Net -12,983 0 0 0 0

Treasury Notes Net 0 0 0 0 0

Treasury Bonds Net 0 0 0 0 0

Marketable Inflation Compensation 0 0 0 0 0

Marketable TIPS Inflation Adjustment -52 -53 0 -207 -51

Total Marketable Activity -13,035 -53 0 -207 -51

Airport and Airway Trust Fund 803 0 0 0 103

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund 11 0 0 -2 0

Department of Defense Medicare Eligible Retiree Fund -11 -4 0 -13 -62

Employees' Health Benefits Fund -284 193 0 27 -205

Employees' Life Trust Fund -15 39 0 27 -18

Exchange Stabilization Fund 6,987 1,156 0 -2,832 4,604

Deposit Insurance Fund -1 -260 0 -46 0

Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 381 60 0 352 -864

FHA, Mutual Mortgage Insurance Capital Reserve Account, HUD 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 320 -375 0 311 961

Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance Trust Fund 2,589 628 0 2,073 -9,635

Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund -745 -572 0 66 2,847

Foreign Service Retirement And Disability Fund 0 0 0 0 0

Highway Trust Fund 2,427 0 0 0 254

National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund -3 -5 0 3 8

Deposits, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Bonus Bids, MMS 0 0 0 0 0

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 112 121 0 563 1,394

Postal Service Fund 190 -982 0 -258 286

Railroad Retirement Account 4 -42 0 73 42

Thrift Savings Fund -245 0 0 0 0

Unemployment Trust Fund -88 -44 0 -30 -111

All Other Trust Funds 649 194 0 13 504

Total Government Account Series (Net) 13,080 107 0 327 110

Certificates of Indebtedness 11 0 0 -4 -1

Discount Adjustment 5 12 0 47 12

Foreign Series 0 0 0 0 0

Nonmarketable TIPS Inflation Adjustment -30 -30 0 -121 -30

Nonmarketable Inflation Compensation 0 0 0 0 0

State and Local Government Series 0 0 0 -1 0

Tax and Loss Bonds 0 0 0 0 0

United States Savings Bonds -32 -35 0 -41 -40

Total Non-Marketable Activity (Net) 13,035 54 0 207 51

Daily Public Debt Activity 0 0 0 0 0

Total Public Debt Subject to Limit 18,112,975 18,112,975 18,112,975 18,112,975 18,112,975

Daily Extraordinary Measures 

Investments Suspended (-)/Reinvested (+) 6,458 354 0 -3,408 4,329

Daily Debt Subject to Limit Activity 

October 2015

($ millions)
Date

Impacted

Funds

Measures 

Authorized

Measures 

Used

Measures 

Remaining

CSRDF 1/ 2/ 143 (140) 3

G Fund 206 (206) 0

ESF 23 (1) 21

Totals* 371 (347) 24

2/ Assumes Debt Issuance Suspension Period ends on October 30, 

2015.

DEBT SUBJECT TO LIMIT 

EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES

($ billions)

10/14/2015

*Differences may occur due to rounding.

1/ Includes Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, Postal 

Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund, and Federal Financing Bank 

(FFB) Swap.
CDFI 4.1 Table

(values in $millions)

Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Percent

Capital Investments Total 0.308 1.308 2.308 3.308 4.308 5.308 6.308 7.308 8.308 9.308 10.308 11.308 12.308 13.308 14.308 53.72 

Major IT sub-total 

non-Major IT sub-total 0.200 - 0.883 - 1.083 0.281 - 1.694 - 1.975 1.000 - 4.762 - 5.762 191.75 

IT Total 0.200 - 0.883 - 1.083 0.281 - 1.694 - 1.975 1.000 - 4.762 - 5.762 191.75 

non-IT Total 

CDFI Total 0.308 1.308 2.308 3.308 4.308 5.308 6.308 7.308 8.308 9.308 10.308 11.308 12.308 13.308 14.308 53.72 

Major IT sub-total 

non-Major IT sub-total 0.200 - 0.883 - 1.083 0.281 - 1.694 - 1.975 1.000 - 4.762 - 5.762 191.75 

IT Total 0.200 - 0.883 - 1.083 0.281 - 1.694 - 1.975 1.000 - 4.762 - 5.762 191.75 

non-IT Total 

CDFI Major IT Investments 

CDFI non-Major IT Investments 

Award Management Information System 0.200 - - - 0.200 0.281 - 0.827 - 1.108 1.000 - 4.312 - 5.312 379.42 

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

 0.200 - - - 0.200 0.281 - 0.827 - 1.108 1.000 - 4.312 - 5.312 379.42 

Community Investment Impact System - - 0.883 - 0.883 - - 0.867 - 0.867 - - 0.450 - 0.450 (48.10)

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

 - - 0.883 - 0.883 - - 0.867 - 0.867 - - 0.450 - 0.450 (48.10)

CDFI non-IT Investments

FY 2015 Actuals FY 2016 Enacted 

DME O&M Total DME O&M Total DME O&M Total Change from 

CY to BY

FY 2017 Request 

CDFI 4.1 Table 2017 Page 1 of 1 3/7/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TANDY BRANDS
ACCESSORIES, INC.'S JUNE 30, 1999, ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K FILINGS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,180
<INVENTORY>                                     55,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,076
<PP&E>                                          17,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,229
<BONDS>                                         47,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,762
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,138
<SALES>                                        178,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,373
<CGS>                                          112,705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,662
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,717
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.67


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Source-Interlink Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, S.
Leslie Flegel, Chief Executive 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:

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/ S. Leslie Flegel
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          S. Leslie Flegel, Chairman and Chief
                                          Executive Officer


* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Source-Interlink Companies, Inc.
and will be retained by Source-Interlink Companies, Incorporated and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ex parte Juan SANTOS.

No. 22245.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1942.

Julian La Crosse, of Del Rio, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

The question sought to be presented on appeal is moot, as appears from the opinion in Ex parte Maria Sanchez, Tex.Cr. App., 165 S.W.Zd 743.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Image Sensing Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Aubrey, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ Kenneth R. Aubrey                        
| | Name: Kenneth R. Aubrey                      
| | Title: President and Chief
 Executive Officer
| | November 12, 2009                            

---
#### KOSEL v. STATE.

No. 22298.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 18,1942.

Henry Taylor, of Temple, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for receiving stolen property, punishment being three years in the penitentiary.

At the January term, 1940, of the District Court of Coryell County, appellant entered a plea of-guilty to a charge of receiving and concealing personal property over the value of fifty dollars. Appellant made application for suspended sentence. The jury assessed his punishment at three years in the penitentiary and recommended a suspension of his sentence. Subsequently in *July,*1941, and during the period of the suspension, appellant was convicted of another felony in the District Court of Bell County. Upon being advised of such conviction, the District Judge of Coryell County caused appellant to be brought before the court, and revoked the suspension of sentence, atid sentenced appellant in accordance with the judgment of conviction in 1940. From such sentence appellant seeks to appeal.

By Act of 1941 the Regular Session of the 47th Legislature so amended the law as to provide that in cases where a suspended sentence had been revoked: “ * * * no new trial shall be granted in the first conviction, nor shall the validity or finalty of the first conviction be attacked by appeal or otherwise, and no right of appeal shall exist to test the validity of the judgment of conviction, sentence upon which was suspended.” Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 779.

The amended Act was given sanction in an opinion of date November 4, 1942, in Lee Roy Millican v. State, 167 S.W.2d 188, in which it was held that no appeal would lie under the circumstances stated. For the reasons therein given the appeal here attempted is abortive.

The appeal is dismissed.