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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1095 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, as the ‘‘PFC 

James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Ms. BARRAGA ́N (for herself, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. 

HUFFMAN, Mr. DESAULNIER, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. 

COSTA, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. 

AGUILAR, Mr. LIEU, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. PORTER, 

Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. PETERS, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mrs. TORRES of California, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Ms. 

JACOBS of California, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. CHU, Mr. SWALWELL, Mr. 

BERA, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. BASS, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, 

Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. LOFGREN, and Mr. LEVIN of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, 

California, as the ‘‘PFC James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1095 IH

1 SECTION 1. PFC JAMES ANDERSON, JR., POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue 

5 in Compton, California, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘PFC James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘PFC James Anderson, 

11 Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RENEE GOMEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30086

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00108-EFS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Renee Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

120-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for drug crimes

involving methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 856, and

860. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gomez challenges the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief. We

review de novo the district court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), and we

review for clear error its factual determination that a defendant is ineligible for

safety-valve relief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th

Cir. 2007). Contrary to Gomez’s contention, the district court made its own

determination, separate from the jury’s finding of guilt, that Gomez’s safety-valve

statement was not truthful. See United States v. Sherpa, 110 F.3d 656, 662 (9th

Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. See United

States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1144-45 (9th Cir.) (upholding denial of

safety-valve relief where the defendant denied knowing anything about a marijuana

growing operation, but evidence in the record suggested otherwise), cert. denied,

133 S. Ct. 775 (2012). Therefore, Gomez is not entitled to relief from the statutory

mandatory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5).

Gomez’s motion to take judicial notice is denied. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-30086
<PAGE>   1
                            TARGET THERAPEUTICS, INC.
                    ----------------------------------------
                   CALCULATION OF NET INCOME/(LOSS) PER SHARE
               (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS; UNAUDITED)


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three months ended      Six months ended
                                                            September 30,          September 30,
                                                         ------------------    --------------------
                                                           1996       1995       1996         1995
                                                         -------    -------    --------     -------
<S>                                                      <C>        <C>        <C>          <C>    
Net income/(loss)                                        $ 3,347    $ 2,700    $ (7,377)    $ 4,833
                                                         =======    =======    ========     =======
Weighted average shares outstanding during the period     14,862     14,332      14,825      14,294
Common equivalent shares (1)                                 658        836          --         736
                                                         -------    -------    --------     -------
Shares used in calculation of net income per share        15,520     15,168      14,825      15,030
                                                         =======    =======    ========     =======
Net income/(loss) per share                              $   .22    $   .18    $   (.50)    $   .32
                                                         =======    =======    ========     =======
</TABLE>





(1) Common share equivalent shares are not used in the calculation of the per
share (loss) for the six months ended September 30, 1996 since they are
antidilutive.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,112
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          49,507
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,338,600
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (79,120)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,526,846
<DEPOSITS>                                     494,064
<SHORT-TERM>                                   712,194
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             56,851
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           273
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,526,846
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                124,568
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,213
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    13
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               126,477
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,015
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,826
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           86,651
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   57,793
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                151,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,670
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      16,375
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,375
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    54,145
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                88,397
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   78,767
<RECOVERIES>                                    11,697
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               79,120
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            79,120
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1005 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1005

 To require records of the national instant criminal background check 
              system to be retained for at least 90 days.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2021

   Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York (for herself and Mr. Carson) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require records of the national instant criminal background check 
              system to be retained for at least 90 days.

    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 ``NICS Review Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT NICS RECORDS BE RETAINED FOR AT LEAST 90 DAYS.

    Section 511 of division B of the Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (34 U.S.C. 40901 note; Public Law 
112-55; 125 Stat. 632) is amended by striking ``no more than 24 hours'' 
and inserting ``no fewer than 90 days''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         (3,566)
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (39,921)
<INVENTORY>                                    451,638
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               84,245
<PP&E>                                         1,606,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (655,660)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,565,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          910,088
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,665
<OTHER-SE>                                     652,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,565,817
<SALES>                                        776,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               776,069
<CGS>                                          398,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  914,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             43,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (179,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (179,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (179,824)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)
        



</TABLE>
STATE EX REL. Joseph GARDNER v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0574

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

*1221Denied. Relator fails to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claim, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6241-6243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02273]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant 
Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action(s)

    On January 12, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

Individuals

[[Page 6242]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03FE22.038


[[Page 6243]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03FE22.039

    Authority: E.O. 13382, 70 FR 38567, 3 CFR, 2005 Comp., p. 170.

    Dated: January 12, 2022.
Andrea M. Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2022-02273 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
#### Lang v Lang Electric Company, Inc,

No. 90852;

Court of Appeals No. 132940.

Griffin, J.

I would grant leave to appeal.

Reconsideration granted 439 Mich 957.
Roberto Morales DIAZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0552

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 11, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
Peter Andrew BOSCH, Appellant, v. The MIAMI HERALD and the Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.

CASE NO. 1D17-1083

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2017 Rehearing Denied February 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Ohio

Kona Ice, Inc.

1:18-cv-00409

Sean O'Connor and Rikki O'Connor

d/b/a Tikiz of Cincinnati

Sean O'Connor and Rikki O'Connor

d/b/a Tikiz of Cincinnati

9350 Floral Avenue

Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Brett A. Schatz

Wood Herron & Evans L.L.P.

441 Vine Street, 2700 Carew Tower

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Case: 1:18-cv-00409-MRB Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 30
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

 I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

 I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

 Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

1:18-cv-00409

0.00

Case: 1:18-cv-00409-MRB Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 31
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, E. Thomas Hart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended October 2, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofQuickLogic Corporation.

 
|     | By:      | /s/ E. Thomas Hart        |
|----------|----------|---------------------------|
|     | Date:    | November 10, 2005    |
|     | Name:    | E. Thomas Hart            |
| * * | *Title*: | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

I, Carl M. Mills, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended October 2, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofQuickLogic Corporation.

 
|     | By:      | /s/ Carl M. Mills         |
|----------|----------|---------------------------|
|     | Date:    | November 10, 2005    |
|     | Name:    | Carl M. Mills             |
| * * | *Title:* | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
Kenneth E. GREENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-555

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018

Kenneth E. Greene, Clermont, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 38 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 38

 Disapproving the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration 
   relating to hearings held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the 
                            Appeals Council.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2021

   Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself and Mr. Danny K. Davis of 
Illinois) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Disapproving the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration 
   relating to hearings held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the 
                            Appeals Council.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to 
``Hearings Held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the Appeals 
Council'' (published at 85 Fed. Reg. 73138 (November 16, 2020)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```