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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 349 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 349

     To allow depository institutions to offer negotiable order of 
withdrawal accounts to all businesses, to repeal the prohibition on the 
    payment of interest on demand deposits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 1999

  Mr. Hagel (for himself and Mr. Reed) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To allow depository institutions to offer negotiable order of 
withdrawal accounts to all businesses, to repeal the prohibition on the 
    payment of interest on demand deposits, 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 ``Small Business Banking Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SAVINGS AND DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS AT 
              DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

    (a) Now Accounts Authorized for All Businesses.--Section 2 of 
Public Law 93-100 (12 U.S.C. 1832) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 2. WITHDRAWALS BY NEGOTIABLE OR TRANSFERABLE INSTRUMENTS FOR 
              TRANSFERS TO THIRD PARTIES.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any depository 
institution (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act) may permit the owner of any deposit or account at that institution 
on which interest or dividends are paid to make withdrawals from such 
deposit or account by negotiable or transferable instruments for the 
purpose of making payments to third parties.''.
    (b) Repeal of Prohibitions on Payment of Interest on Demand 
Deposits.--
            (1) Federal reserve act.--Section 19(i) of the Federal 
        Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(i) [Reserved].''.
            (2) Home owners' loan act.--Section 5(b)(1)(B) of the Home 
        Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
                    (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``savings 
                association may not--'' and all that follows through 
                ``(ii) permit any'' and inserting ``savings association 
                may not permit any'';
                    (B) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)''; and
                    (C) by striking ``All savings'' and inserting the 
                following:
                    ``(ii) All savings''.
            (3) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 18(g) of the 
        Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(g)) is amended to 
        read as follows:
    ``(g) [Reserved].''.
                                 <all>
```
#### State of Iowa v. Elias Doty, Appellant.

Overruling Demurrer to Indictment: not appealable. Under Code, section 5448, providing that an appeal in a criminal case can only be taken from a final judgment, the supreme court has no jurisdiction to determine an appeal from an order overruling a demurer to an indictment. •

*Appeal from Linn District Oourt.*— PIoN. H. M. Remley, Judge.

Saturday, October 21, 1899.

Ladd, J.

Indictment for libel, to which the defendant interposed a demurrer. This was overruled, and the'appeal is from that ruling. It does not appear judgment has ever been entered. In a criminal action, “an appeal can only betaken from final judgment.” Code, section 5448. An order overruling a demurrer is not such. *State v.*Swearengen, 43 Iowa, 336. To confer jurisdiction, the abstract mustf affirmatively show that final judgment has been entered,. *454
      *State v.*Wheeler, 65 Iowa, 619; *State v.*Haworth, 85 Iowa, 712; *State v. Briggs,*73 Iowa, 456. It follows that this .appeal must be dismissed. '
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                           0000925178               
<NAME>                                  MOVIE GALLERY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000  
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-05-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-04-1998
<CASH>                                               1,201
<SECURITIES>                                             0    
<RECEIVABLES>                                          616
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         11,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    17,189
<PP&E>                                             296,734<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     207,338<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     198,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               31,370
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                13
<OTHER-SE>                                         120,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       198,323
<SALES>                                             32,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   198,550
<CGS>                                               21,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      236,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4,179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (42,040)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (15,321)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (26,719)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (26,719)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.99)
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES $217,450 OF VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL INVENTORY.
<F2> INCLUDES $173,027 OF ACCUMULATED AMORTIZATION ON VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL
     INVENTORY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report ofRiverdale Mining Inc.(the "Company") onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Vladimir Vaskevich, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated this 15th day of August, 2011.  VLADIMIR VASKEVICHVladimir VaskevichChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Riverdale Mining Inc. and will be retained by Riverdale Mining Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 11, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 471 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-74, K2025-72.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24078 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" and the
incorporation by reference of our reports dated March 25, 2005, which appear in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Loudeye Corp. and
subsidiaries, management's report on internal control over financial reporting,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-120944, No. 333-58980,
No. 333-55508, and No. 333-32560).

                                             /s/ Moss Adams LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 30, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

RICHARD R. LAUFER III, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30228 

D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00121-SPW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Richard R. Laufer, III, appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* 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

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-30228

Laufer argues that the district court procedurally erred by treating a sentence 

within the Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable and failing to consider 

whether a below-Guidelines sentence was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. 

The record reflects that the court understood that it could vary below the 

Guidelines range, considered Laufer’s arguments for doing so, and was 

unpersuaded that a downward variance was warranted under the section 3553(a) 

sentencing factors. 

Laufer also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

a lower sentence would have satisfied the goals of sentencing. The district court 

did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 

3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the serious nature 

of the crime, Laufer’s extensive criminal history, the fact that Laufer was on 

supervised release for a prior felony conviction at the time of the instant offense, 

and the danger to the community posed by Laufer’s possession of drugs and 

firearms. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Pinpoint Recovery Solutions Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Jon D. Leslie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





May
      15, 2008




/S/ JON D.
LESLIE
  [A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pinpoint Recovery Solutions Corp. and will be retained by Pinpoint Recovery
Solutions Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7165

DOUGLAS A. TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLLIE RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-4124-24BH-4) Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas A. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Douglas A. Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to prosecute his claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Turner that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Turner failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Turner has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84922-84923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4829-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

South Carolina; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4829-DR), dated September 29, 
2024, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 11, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 29, 2024.

    Beaufort County for Individual Assistance.
    Fairfield County for Individual Assistance (already designated 
for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance).
    Bamberg and Greenwood Counties for permanent work [Categories C-
G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for 
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and 
B], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 
program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora

[[Page 84923]]

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal 
Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, 
Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing 
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared 
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and 
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to 
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-24683 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Peter S. Teshima, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



| | (i) |  | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended April 2, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    PETER S.
TESHIMAPeter S. Teshima Corporate Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial OfficerJune 14, 2006




A signed
original 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.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00177-CV

ROBIN WILLIAMS AND WILLIAM R. 

WILLIAMS

APPELLANTS

V.

TLC PROPERTIES APPELLEE 

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-001364-1

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On June 5, 2014, June 18, 2014, and August 28, 2014, we notified 

appellants in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would 

dismiss this appeal unless the $195 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

42.3(c). Appellants have not paid the $195 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 

12.1(b).

Because appellants failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 16, 2013,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 18, 2014

 2

See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13-9127 (Aug. 16, 2013) (listing fees in courts of 

appeals).