alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2938 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States Courthouse and Federal 

Building located at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United 

States Courthouse and Federal Building’’, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2938 ES

1 SECTION 1. JOSEPH WOODROW HATCHETT UNITED STATES 

2 COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Courthouse 

4 and Federal Building located at 111 North Adams Street 

5 in Tallahassee, Florida, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse 

7 and Federal Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the United States Courthouse and Federal 

11 Building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to 

12 be a reference to the ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United 

13 States Courthouse and Federal Building’’. 

Passed the Senate December 9, 2021. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2938 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States Courthouse and 

and Federal Building’’, and for other purposes. Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ‘‘Joseph Federal Building located at 111 North Adams
• REF ID:A7174 • 

·-· 

s 52364 

S!ettti'fY lNPtlBMA'f IeN 

• 1S32 J:1~l 8 18 3 J 

FROM: USCIB OOORD~iju .%d~I 1952 

TO : SUSLO • LOii.DON 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

;1a215~'z 

DEFERRED 

~UEST YOU OOMMUlUCAT.E THE JOLWWING ro1 .... _______ l "HAVE JUST LEAm4ED WIW 

MUCH SATISFACTIOc~ THAT YOUR fV.A)E.E HEADS LIST OF GCHQ RECIPIENTS OF KINGS m.l'J IE..~ 

HONORS. YOUR SELECTION AS A eokliANJ>ER CF THE (JRDEfl OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE IS A 'tr'ELL 

MERITED HONOR All!D I OFFER MI SDICERE CONGRATUI..ATIONS AND ~T WISHF.S TO YOU AWD lOUR 

COLLABORATORS." 

CC a AFSA-123. __ (15) AFSA•l31 ....__ 

~·· 

PARAPHRμS[ NOT REQUIRED CONSULT cnv~TOCENTER BEFORE DECLASSIFYINC 

¢8215~Z JAN 52 

RP.HiHill? 

. . l 1 

-.. - ~ 

We Fo FRIEDMAN Re Jo OAN~E, VAJ. Gm., USA 

TECHNICAL ADIVSER ro DIRAFSA 604.39 USCIB OOORDD.A'l'CJR 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 12, 2016*

Decided December 2, 2016 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16-2948 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JEREMIAH S. BERG, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 10-CR-207 

William C. Griesbach, 

Chief Judge. 

O R D E R 

Jeremiah Berg filed this successive appeal challenging the district court’s denial 

of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Berg stands 

convicted of conspiring to distribute marijuana, being a felon in possession of a firearm, 

and distributing cocaine. The district court sentenced Berg to 240 months’ 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the 

appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 16-2948 Page 2 

imprisonment, which was below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range of 262 to 

327 months. Berg contends that Amendment 782 to the Guidelines reduced this range. 

It didn’t: although Amendment 782 reduced the offense levels for most drugrelated offenses, the district court did not base Berg’s sentence on his drug-related 

convictions; it instead based the sentence on his felon-in-possession conviction, which 

carried a higher adjusted offense level than did his other convictions. Because 

Amendment 782 did not alter the offense level for Berg’s firearm offense, the overall 

sentencing range remains the same as before. 

Berg also argues that the district court erred when it relied on his Presentence 

Investigation Report (“PSR”) to dispose of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Specifically, he 

claims that the PSR contains inaccurate and unreliable evidence about the quantity of 

cocaine relevant to his distribution conviction. Unfortunately for Berg, that ship has 

sailed. “The Sentencing Guidelines provide that, when using § 3582(c)(2) to reduce a 

sentence, courts ‘shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the 

corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was 

sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.’” United 

States v. Davis, No. 16-1879, 2016 WL 6143087, at *2 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2016) (quoting 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1)); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010).1 Put 

differently, Berg “can use § 3582(c)(2) only to reduce his sentence under Amendment 

782, not to relitigate other sentencing issues.” Davis, 2016 WL 6143087, at *2. If Berg 

wanted to challenge the accuracy of his PSR, he should have done so in his first appeal. 

He cannot do so here. 

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision. 

 

1 Subsection (d) includes Amendment 782.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 21.1


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant




Subsidiary Name                                         State of Incorporation
---------------------------------------------           ----------------------

JUDGE ELECTRONIC SERVICES OF BOSTON, INC.               Massachusetts

JUDGE ELECTRONIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC.              Florida

JUDGE HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC.                        Pennsylvania

JUDGE IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC.                             Delaware

JUDGE INC. OF NEW JERSEY                                New Jersey

JUDGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.                       Pennsylvania

JUDGE TECHNICAL SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY, INC.            New Jersey

JUDGE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.                          Pennsylvania

JUDGE, INC.                                             Pennsylvania

ON-SITE SOLUTIONS, Inc.                                 California

SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS, INC.                                 Washington

THE BERKELEY ASSOCIATES CORPORATION                     Delaware
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0507. LAMAR JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

Lamar Johnson was convicted of armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle,

kidnapping, false imprisonment, and possession of a firearm during the commission

of a crime. We affirmed his convictions on appeal. See Johnson v. State, 309 Ga.

App. 655 (710 SE2d 857) (2011). In August 2016, Johnson filed an extraordinary

motion for new trial, which the trial court denied on August 30, 2016. On October

4, 2016, Johnson filed a notice of appeal. However, we lack jurisdiction for two

reasons.

 First, Johnson has no right to a direct appeal. Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7),

appealsfromthe denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial must comply with the

discretionary appeal procedure. Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d

129) (1997). Complying therewith, Johnson filed an application for discretionary

appeal, but we denied the application on the merits. See Case No. A17D0093, denied

October 13, 2016. Our denial of Johnson’s application was an adjudication on the

merits; thus the doctrine of res judicata bars further appeal of this order. See

Northwest Social & Civic Club, Inc. v. Franklin, 276 Ga. 859, 860 (583 SE2d 858)

(2003); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 260-261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007).

 Second, even if Johnson had a right of direct appeal here, this appeal is

untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the trial court

order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a

notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Johnson’s notice of

appeal is untimely, as he filed it 35 days after entry of the trial court order he seeks

December 06, 2016
to appeal.

 For the above reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/06/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE JUDGE GROUP, INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM
10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          43,568
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,278,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                   511,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,185,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,884,079
<PP&E>                                       8,166,048
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,220,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,885,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,670,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,412
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,885,427
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           114,498,397
<CGS>                                       78,770,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              116,140,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               251,726
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               439,810
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             251,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,914,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (797,776)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,116,993)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,116,993)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)
        


</TABLE>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2492 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to modify the treatment of revenue 

from timber sale contracts and certain payments made by counties to 

the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior under 

good neighbor agreements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2021 

Mr. RISCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to modify the treatment of revenue from timber sale contracts and certain 

payments made by counties to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior under good 

neighbor agreements, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Treating Tribes and 

5 Counties as Good Neighbors Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2492 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF THE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN 

2 REVENUE AND PAYMENTS UNDER GOOD 

3 NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS. 

4 (a) GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY.—Section 8206 of 

5 the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a) is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ‘‘or Indian 

8 tribe’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (b)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ‘‘, 

11 Indian tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’; 

12 (B) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking clause 

13 (i) and inserting the following: 

14 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Funds received 

15 from the sale of timber by a Governor, an 

16 Indian tribe, or a county under a good 

17 neighbor agreement shall be retained and 

18 used by the Governor, Indian tribe, or 

19 county, as applicable— 

20 ‘‘(I) to carry out authorized res21 toration services under the good 

22 neighbor agreement; and 

23 ‘‘(II) if there are funds remain24 ing after carrying out subclause (I), 

25 to carry out authorized restoration 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2492 IS

1 services under other good neighbor 

2 agreements.’’; 

3 (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, In4 dian tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’; and 

5 (D) by striking paragraph (4). 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 8206(a) 

7 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a(a)) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ‘‘, Indian 

10 tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘, Indian 

12 tribe,’’ after ‘‘Governor’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this Act apply to any project initiated pursuant to a good 

15 neighbor agreement (as defined in section 8206(a) of the 

16 Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a(a)))— 

17 (1) before the date of enactment of this Act, if 

18 the project was initiated after the date of enactment 

19 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public 

20 Law 115–334; 132 Stat. 4490); or 

21 (2) on or after the date of enactment of this 

22 Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2208

YVONNE E. FLETCHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERATON HOTEL BWIN ASSOCIATION LIMITED;

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97-

751-MJG)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yvonne E. Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se. George McKnight Church,

Christine Tryphena Altemus, CHURCH & HOUFF, P.A., Baltimore,

Maryland; Edward J. Longosz, II, Susan Hall Snively, MILES &

STOCKBRIDGE, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her

complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Fletcher v. Sheraton Hotel BWIN

Assoc., Ltd., No. CA-97-751-MJG (D. Md. July 22, 1997). We deny

Appellee's motion for sanctions against Appellant. We further 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.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying  Annual Report of Radale Imports,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal  year ended March 31, 2006 (the
"Report"),  I, Lee D. Dodson,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  August 31, 2006

                                                         /s/ Lee D. Dodson
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Lee D. Dodson
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.














                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

163) ll-E-123 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM Sheet 163 of 264 
01/14/98 WED 09:44 FAX 360 696 0055 

01/12/98 17:26 ©18188410234 

LAVALLEY IND. 

PES RTP NC ®00iV002 ©002 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

January 12.1998 

Ms. Sandy Bracldns 

LaValley Industries, Inc. 

Telephone Number: (360)696-2588 

Vex Number:' (360) 696-0055 

Contact Summary: 

Ms. Sandy Bracldns was contacted to update information provided in the 1993 EPA 

Reinforced Plastic Composites Screening Survey submitted by LaValley Industries, Inc. for their 

facility located in Vancouver, Washington. In response to my questions Ms. Bracldns indicated the 

following: 

The facility still uses hand lay-up (bucket & brush/roller) to apply a vinyl ester resin in the 

fabrication of certain products. The facility uses band lay-up for approximately 37,5% of its total 

production. The vinyl ester resin applied by hand lay-up contains approximately 35% styrene by 

weight and does not contain a vapor suppressant. No additional styrene is added to the resin during 

the fabrication process. 

The facility still uses atomized mechanical spray-up to apply a vinyl ester resin in the 

fabrication of certain products. The facility uses atomized mechanical spray-up for approximately 

37.5% of its total production. The vinyl ester resin applied by atomized mechanical spray-up 

contains approximately 35% styrene by weight and does not contaim a vapor suppressant. No 

additional styrene is added to the resin during the fabrication process, 

The facility has started using non-atomized mechanical spray-up (i.e. flow coaters) to apply 

a vinyl ester resin in the fabrication of certain products. The feicility uses flow coaters for 

approximately 25% of its total production. The vinyl ester resin applied by these flow-coaters 

contains approximately 35% styrene by weight and does not contain a vapor suppressant. No 

additional styrene is added to the resin during the fabrication process. 

The facility still uses atomized mechanical spray-up to apply a pigmented polyester gel coat 

which contains approximately 35% styrene by weight. No additional styrene or methyl methacrylate 

is added to the gel coat in the fabrication process. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE v W ^ hfUiklMA ) 

\ 

"•*"> * MO OSR21 BlQO.2 
P.3 

01/14/98 WED 09:44 FAX 360 696 0055 LAVALLEY IND. @001 

*GLV 

LAVALLEY 

To: ffiS,lW-^ 

Attn: jfxhud. {j^ru^un^J 

From: 

Fax Transmittal 

Date: _____________ 

fymW 

Number of pages transmitted: Q £\ (including this cover sheets) 

Message:^ 

f df AOyy^ JU 

>_&W*-V /ItCUJ^Z 

^U-

___0___ZJ&L 

'ft^LLaf/7s34te_ *?&&Atta£*£r-_. 

Best Regards, 

GL&V LaValley Industries, Inc. 7600 NE 47th Avenue, Vancouver, VIA 98661 

phone (360) 696-2588 fax (360) 696-0055 fi«frw«ri-
================================================================================

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  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 of Hudson's Grill International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, David Roff, Chief Executive 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


     Dated: April 30, 2009


     /s/ "David Roff"


     David Roff
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



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

Notice is hereby given that GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P., 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1460, Minneapolis, MN 55402, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the “Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P. proposes to provide subordinated debt financing to H & R Accounts, Inc. d.b.a. Avadyne Health, Inc., 7017 John Deere Parkway, Moline, IL 61265.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(4) of the Regulations because GMB Mezzanine Capital, L.P., a current investor in H & R Accounts, Inc. and an Associate of GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P., will receive repayment of its subordinated debt investment from the proceeds of GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P.'s proposed investment. Therefore, this transaction is considered providing financing to a Small Business to discharge an obligation to an Associate, requiring SBA prior written exemption.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: March 17, 2015.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2015-07582 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE 8025-01-P