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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6162 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6162

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' 
                    Tidwell Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2023

Mr. Moore of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Carl, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. 
   Aderholt, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Strong, and Ms. Sewell) 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 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' 
                    Tidwell Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LABRUCE ``BRUCE'' TIDWELL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, shall be known 
and designated as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' Tidwell Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``LaBruce 
`Bruce' Tidwell Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Lewis LEIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2099

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

David Buckner of Buckner Miles, Miami, Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, and Matthew I. Menchel of Kobre & Kim LLP, Miami, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Levine and Conner, JJ., concur.
Miguel Angel Sordo QUINTANILLA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CARIB SALES, LLC, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2485

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to the First District Court of Appeal.
454 A.2d 163

#### Commonwealth v. Gilliam, Appellant.

Submitted January 25, 1982.

Richard W. Hoy, for appellant; Jane Cutler Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Edith Davis ELMORE v. DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY

2015-CT-01499-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 20, 2018 Closed: June 21, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
Gary DAY v. STATE

CR-16-0436

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration No. 333-36460 of
eOn Communications Corporation (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our report dated
August 22, 2001, August 28, 2001 as to Note 3 (which expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the discontinued
operations of Cortelco Systems Puerto Rico, Inc., the Company's wholly-owned
Caribbean / Latin America service and distribution subsidiary) appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of eOn Communications Corporation for the year ended
July 31, 2001.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
October 29, 2001
Antonio RHODES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
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 Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of RAE Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |     |  |                                   
|------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------
|             |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert I. Chen                
|June 6, 2005 |  |     |  | Robert I. Chen                    
|             |  |     |  | President, Chief Executive Officer
|             |  |     |  | and Chairman of the Board         



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

ANTOINE M. WOOTEN, Defendant – Appellee,

v. PRESTON DARNELL ROE, Movant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00356-RLW)

Submitted: March 30, 2009 Decided: April 15, 2009

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Horace F. Hunter, HUNTER & LIPTON, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Preston Darnell Roe appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to unseal the presentence report of another

defendant in a closed criminal case. We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States Dep’t of Justice v. Julian , 486 U.S. 1, 12 (1988) (holding that a third party must make a showing of a “special need” in order to gain access to another individual’s presentence report). 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.

AFFIRMED
James LEACH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2765

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Gary C. QUILLING, Petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1693

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Gary C. Quilling, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Clarence JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2683

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 775.084(4)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) ; *State v. Matthews*, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004) ; *Alexander v. State*, 88 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; *Cooper v. State*, 902 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q OF XIRCOM, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         129,310
<SECURITIES>                                   230,432
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,337
<INVENTORY>                                     18,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               454,534
<PP&E>                                         102,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 572,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                     490,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   572,380
<SALES>                                        362,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               362,067
<CGS>                                          201,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  201,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               139,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,582
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,456
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
registration statements on Form S-1 (Nos. 333-30074, 333-36826 and 333-38538)
and on Form S-8 (No. 333-32678) of our report dated January 11, 2002, relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Nettaxi.com appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
San Jose, California
February 21, 2002



<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1



        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph A. Turek, Chief Executive Officer of M-Wave, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 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 12, 2003                       /s/ Joseph A. Turek
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Joseph A. Turek
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                       29
James Psycoscia DORTCH v. STATE

CR-16-0051

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dominique Alexander JONES, a/k/a Big Nique, a/k/a Nique, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7616

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Dominique Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dominique Alexander Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Our review of the record confirms that Jones sought successive § 2255 relief without authorization from this court, and we therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012). Thus, we affirm the district court’s *241order. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

We construe Jones’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, or a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(l)-(2). Jones’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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*
Jessica Briana ISBELL v. STATE

CR-16-0021

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

Affirmed.
#### Nathaniel Goddard *versus*Nathaniel Austin.

Where a sheriff, tc whom a writ of attachment was delivered, had directions from tile creditor to attach certain chattels of the debtor, he was not bound to attach on the same writ other property, afterwards shown him by another creditor, with directions to attach the same on his suit.

Case against the defendant, sheriff of the county of *Middlesex,*for the misfeasance of one of his deputies. The plaintiff sued out a writ of attachment against one *Turner,*endorsing thereon a direction to the officer to attach certain lumber in the ship-yard of the debtor; and the deputy made and returned the attachment accordingly. Afterwards one *Cutter,*another creditor of *Turner,*sued his writ of attachment, and delivered it to the same deputy, with a direction to attach a vessel on the stocks in the same yard, which was done.

The plaintiff insisted that the deputy was bound to return an attachment of the vessel on his .writ, prior to that upon *Cutter’s*writ; as indeed he afterwards, in a conversation with the plaintiffs attorney, informed him that he had done.

*But the Court*were clearly of opinion that, under the circum stances of the case, the deputy was under no such * obligation; the special direction given him to attach the lumber excusing him from making any other attachment whatever. If, when he informed the plaintiffs attorney that lie had attached the vessel on his writ, he supposed it was his duty so to have done, because that writ was first in his hands, and after-wards, upon taking advice, he found he was wrong, — he had aright to make his return according to the fact, and to the rights of the parties ; and he cannot be chargeable, as for a false return, merely because he had stated the order of the attachments differently, un der a misapprehension of his duty, *(a)*

(a)

**Vide *Turner*vs. *Austin,*16 *Mass. Rep.*181.
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATIONS


I, Stephen C. Taylor, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.; and





2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.








/s/ Stephen C. Taylor


Stephen C. Taylor


Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)





April 23, 2019
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto GONZALEZ-JAIMES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51376 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alberto Gonzalez-Jaimes, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto Gonzalez-Jaimes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Jaimes has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Anthony WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-2090

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATIONS
      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 Chromcraft Revington, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, Benjamin M. Anderson-Ray, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
      of
      the Company, and Frank T. Kane, Sr. Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 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 operation of the
                Company.










/s/
        Benjamin M. Anderson-Ray
 Benjamin
        M. Anderson-Ray
 Chairman
        and Chief Executive Officer
 May
        14,
        2007
 
 
 /s/
        Frank T. Kane
 Frank
        T.
        Kane
 Sr.
        Vice
        President-Finance and
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 May
        14,
        2007
#### Rene Enmanuel Rivera PORTILLO, a/k/a Rene Portillo, a/k/a Rene Enmanuel Portillo Ochoa, a/k/a Rene Enmanuel Portillo Rivera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 17-1334

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 31, 2017

Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant Director, Benjamin J. Zeitlin, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, arid HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*273Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rene Enmanuel Rivera Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Portillo’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. Portillo has waived review of the agency’s decision that he was not a member of a cognizable social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal because, in his appellate brief, he fails to challenge the finding that his group lacked particularity and social distinction. *See IGEN Int’l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH,*335 F.3d 303, 308, 309 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Failure to present or argue assignments of error in opening appellate briefs constitutes a waiver of those issues.”). Regarding the Board’s denial of protection under the CAT, we conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We also conclude that the Board’s denial of the motion to remand was not an abuse of discretion. *See Hussain v. Gonzales,*477 F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Paula MILLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3478

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 09, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.