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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6073 

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

9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Sergeant 

Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. 

KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. EVANS, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Ms. 

HOULAHAN, Ms. WILD, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Mr. THOMPSON of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. SMUCKER, Mr. DELUZIO, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. 

JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania, Ms. SCANLON, and 

Mr. PERRY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald 

Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER DAVID FITZGERALD 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in PhilaVerDate Sep 11 2014 17:25 Oct 28, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6073.IH H6073

ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6073 IH

1 delphia, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office 

3 Building’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Christopher 

8 David Fitzgerald Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Jose Isabel HERRERA-LAZO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60505 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 14, 2017

Jose Isabel Herrera-Lazo, Pro Se

Gregory Darrell Mack, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Siu Ping Wong, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Isabel Herrera-Lazo, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen seeking to set aside a 1986 order deporting him in abstentia. We decline to disturb the BIA’s ruling.

“Motions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored, and the moving party bears a heavy burden,” *Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales,*435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our authority in this case is circumscribed. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we conclude that the BIA’s decision must stand because it “is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” *Singh v. Gonzales,*436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Even liberally construed, Herrera-Lazo’s pro se brief posits at best concluso-ry assertions and points to no record evidence showing that he did not receive notice of his deportation merits hearing or that he is otherwise entitled to reopening. *See Matter of Haim,*19 I. & N. Dec. 641, 642 (BIA 1988). Given that Herrera-Lazo’s truncated plea for BIA relief rested on conclusory assertions rather than evidence, the BIA’s denial of relief cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious, or irrational. *See Singh,*436 F.3d at 487.

PETITION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EX PARTE Willie Joe GRANT

1151179 (CR-15-0499)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains  summary financial information extracted from the audited
financial  statements  of  Environmental  Remediation  Holding  Corporation  for
September  30,  1997  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000799235
<NAME>                        Environmental Remediation Holding Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         327,743
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               543,451
<PP&E>                                         5,970,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (744,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,656,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,748,376
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,299
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,905,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,656,011
<SALES>                                        108,944
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,944
<CGS>                                          53,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,033,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             40,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,018,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,018,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                6,730
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,012,052)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.62)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      OF
      2002**




I,
      Paul
      D. Hamm, the acting Chief Financial Officer of Endavo Media and Communications,
      Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Endavo
      Media and Communications, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December
      31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Endavo Media and Communications,
      Inc.


Date: May
                  17, 2007
              By:
                  /s/ PAUL D HAMMName:
                  Paul D HammTitle:
                  Acting Chief Financial Officer




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.
#### Joseph Patrick Roman SIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. HENNING, Facility Chaplain, individual and official capacity; H. Gomez, Facility Commander, individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56789

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Joseph Patrick Roman Simon, Pro Se

Adam Lee Miederhoff, County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel, San Bernar-dino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California pretrial detainee Joseph Patrick Roman Simon appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his § 1983 action relating to his alleged denial of kosher meals and Passover observance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed Simon’s action for failure to exhaust, finding that Simon failed to provide evidence that he was unaware of West Valley Detention Center’s grievance procedures in 2012 and 2013. However, Simon provided evidence that the resources available to him during this period failed to explain that he was required to file a second appeal with the facility manager, and that Simon was not otherwise made aware of a second level of appeal. This evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to Simon. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1859, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (“[Wjhen a remedy is ... essentially ‘unknowable’—so that no ordinary prisoner can make sense of what it demands—then it is also unavailable.”). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Simon’s motion informing the court of retaliatory conduct of jail officials, filed on February 19, 2016, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Charles LEE, Petitioner-Appellant v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-31161

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 11, 2017

Charles Lee, Pro Se

Donald Goodwin Cassels, III, District Attorney’s Office for the Parish of Orleans, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent-Appel-lee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Lee, Louisiana prisoner # 386633, is serving concurrent sentences of 491⁄2 years of imprisonment, which were imposed following his 1998 convictions on two counts of armed robbery. His previous conviction of possession of a stolen vehicle, a crime he committed while he was 17 years old, was used to enhance his sentences in the armed robbery cases. Lee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was dismissed in May 2013.

In January 2016, Lee filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment dismissing his § 2254 petition. The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as untimely, and it denied Lee’s motion for reconsideration. Lee now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and the related motion for reconsideration.

Before he can appeal the denial of these motions, Lee must obtain a COA. *See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman,*507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court did not determine whether Lee was entitled to a COA. Because the district court has not issued a COA ruling, we assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. *See*Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings; *Cardenas v. Thaler,*651 F.3d 442, 444 & nn,1-2 (5th Cir. 2011). Nevertheless, we decline to remand this case to the district court for a COA ruling because the appeal is frivolous, and a remand would be futile. *See United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).

In the alternative, even if we have jurisdiction over the appeal absent a COA ruling in the district court, we would deny a COA. To obtain a COA, Lee must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Lee must establish that reasonable jurists would debate that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motions. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Hernandez v. Thaler,*630 F.3d 420, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2011). Lee has failed to make the required showing.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Lee’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of CompuPrint, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, Dan
Brecher, as Principal 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


/s/ Dan Brecher
---------------------------------------
Dan Brecher
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
Date: December 22, 2005
James HINES, Jr., DOC #529817, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Derek N. JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2181

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 27, 2017

*252Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Blair Prevas, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Jarvis’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income.* We review de novo a district court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment. *Martin v. Lloyd,*700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th Cir. 2012). In turn, a district court will affirm the Social Security Administration’s disability determination when an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has applied the correct law and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. *Monroe v. Colvin,*826 F.3d 176, 186 (4th Cir. 2016). In conducting this deferential review, the court does “not conduct a *de novo*review of the evidence,” *Smith v. Schweiker,*795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986), or undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. *Hancock v. Astrue,*667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012). “The duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ, not with a reviewing court.” *Smith v. Chater,*99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Jarvis’s disability claim, and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate-judge’s order. *Jarvis v. Colvin,*No. 8:15-cv-02226-TMD, 2016 WL 5390825 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2016). We also deny Jarvis’s motion to transfer this appeal to the United States Court of Federal Claims and deny as moot the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 The parties consented to a final disposition by the magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). Therefore, it was proper for the magistrate judge to exercise full jurisdiction over the proceeding and to enter a final disposition.
SOUTHSIDE CONSULTING, LLC and Nader Mahroum, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR the CERTIFICATE-HOLDERS OF BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-B; James Scott Wolf; and Kelly R. Wolf, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4261

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018

Albert J. Tiseo, Jr., of Goldman, Tiseo & Sturges, P.A., Port Charlotte, for Appellant Southside Consulting, LLC.

Ryan W. Owen of Adams and Reese, LLP, Sarasota; Suzanne Youmans Labrit of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Tampa; and Laura S. Bauman of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Sarasota, for Appellant Nader Mahroum.

Brittney Lauren Bell, Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, and Emily Y. Rottman of McGuire Woods, LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for the Certificate-Holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-B.

No Appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                                Quarter Ended     Year to date
                                                  July  5,          July  5,
                                              ----------------  ----------------
                                               2003     2002     2003     2002
                                              -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
BASIC
Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                    12,346   12,743   12,399   12,720
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income                                    $ 2,013  $ 4,627  $ 3,520  $ 9,290
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share                   $  0.16  $  0.36  $  0.28  $  0.73
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

DILUTED
Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                    12,346   12,743   12,399   12,720

Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding
during the period                                  33      129       23      112

Total common and common equivalent
                                              -------  -------  -------  -------
shares                                         12,379   12,872   12,422   12,832
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income                                    $ 2,013  $ 4,627  $ 3,520  $ 9,290
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share                   $  0.16  $  0.36  $  0.28  $  0.72
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
Jerome HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Barbara Debelius, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Roberts, and Jay, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7895-7896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02867]


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

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION


Grandfathering (GF) Registration Notice

AGENCY: Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists Grandfathering Registration for projects by 
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in 
DATES.

DATES: January 1-31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, 
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and 
Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: 
(717) 238-2436; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cba1a4b2a7aeb98bb8b9a9a8e5a5aebf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8929781949d8ab88b8a9a9bd6969d8c">[email protected]</span></a>. Regular mail inquiries May be 
sent to the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice lists GF Registration for 
projects, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806, subpart E for the 
time period specified above:
    Grandfathering Registration Under 18 CFR part 806, subpart E:
    1. Village of Alfred--Public Water Supply System, GF Certificate 
No. GF-202201202, Village of Alfred, Allegany County, N.Y.; Wells 1 and 
2; Issue Date: January 28, 2022.
    2. Barletta Materials & Construction, Inc.--Honey Hole Quarry, GF 
Certificate No. GF-202201203, Nescopeck Township, Luzerne County, Pa.; 
Susquehanna River and consumptive use; Issue Date: January 28, 2022.
    3. The Municipal Authority of the Borough of Catawissa--Public 
Water Supply System, GF Certificate No. GF-202201204, Catawissa 
Township and Catawissa Borough, Columbia County, Pa.; Well 6; Issue 
Date: January 28, 2022.
    4. Mifflintown Municipal Authority--Public Water Supply System, GF

[[Page 7896]]

Certificate No. GF-202201205, Fermanagh Township, Juniata County, Pa.; 
Macedonia Wells 1 and 2; Issue Date: January 28, 2022.
    5. Pennsy Supply, Inc.--Small Mountain Quarry, GF Certificate No. 
GF-202201206, Dorrance Township, Luzerne County, Pa.; Wells 1, 2, and 
3; Issue Date: January 28, 2022.
    Authority: Public Law 91-575, 84 stat. 1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 
806, 807, and 808.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Jason E. Oyler,
General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-02867 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7040-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>