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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6073 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

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''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER DAVID FITZGERALD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald 
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 ``Sergeant 
Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Mandy DUNCAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1742

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
William C. COLEMAN v. STATE

CR-15-1497

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Earl Lee ALEXANDER v. STATE

CR-16-0699

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Gregory WHITAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-925

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

Gregory Whitaker, Live Oak, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Gregory Whitaker, appeals the summary denial of his motion pursuant *1300to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Appellant alleged, *inter alia* , that trial counsel was ineffective because (1) counsel failed to take any depositions or otherwise "look into [Appellant's] case," and (2) Appellant informed counsel that he was sick on the morning of trial and that he was therefore unable to think clearly.

Although these claims were facially insufficient as alleged, Appellant was not given an opportunity to amend his claims. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f). Therefore, we reverse as to these two claims with instructions that the trial court give Appellant an opportunity to amend. We otherwise affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2776

V. LEE COOPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

I-NET, INCORPORATED; KAVELLE BAJAJ; KEN BAJAJ;

JEFFREY ROSOLIO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA93-2417-DKC)

Argued: May 8, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996

Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Robert Olin Johnston, JOHNSTON, RIVLIN & FOLE, L.L.P.,

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Daniel A. Masur, I-NET, INC.,

Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

V. Lee Cooper appeals an order of the district court granting

summary judgment to his former employer and three of its officers

in Cooper's suit alleging breach of contract, fraud, and civil

conspiracy. We have considered the briefs and arguments of the

parties, and we affirm the judgment of the district court for the

reasons stated in that court's memorandum opinion. Cooper v. INET, Inc., et al., No. DKC 93-2417 (D. Md., Aug. 16, 1995).

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-36460 of eOn Communications Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated August 29, 2002, which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the Companys change in its method
of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets to conform with FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, and an explanatory paragraph concerning the Companys change in its
method of accounting for the cost of certain inventories from the last-in, first-out method to the first-in, first-out method, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of eOn Communications Corporation for the year ended July 31, 2002.





/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP





Atlanta, Georgia


August 29, 2002
David S. HASTINGS, Appellant/petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3790

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         721,035
<SECURITIES>                                 3,664,486
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,580,670
<PP&E>                                         135,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,221)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,709,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,378
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           373
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,675,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,709,970
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (721,239)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (721,239)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (721,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (721,239)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delfon Lebrew HARE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6732

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 18, 2017

Delfon Lebrew Hare, Appellant Pro Se.

Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, John Michael Pellettieri, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Delfon Lebrew Hare appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We previously granted a certificate of ap-pealability on the question of whether Hare’s claims about the existence of documents, including a state writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum allegedly demonstrating that he was first arrested on federal charges, are relevant to his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim.1 We have reviewed the record, including the parties’ informal briefs following the issuance of the certificate of appealability, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order as to the claim on which we granted a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the claims on which we previously denied a certificate of appeala-bility.2 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART*

1

. Although the Government raised the defense for the first time on appeal that this claim is waived by Hare’s guilty plea, we have reviewed the claim out of an abundance of caution, as did the district court.

2

. Although the district court’s order is somewhat unclear as to whether the court fully considered Hare’s true Rule 60(b) claim that the court had not reviewed Hare’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim in light of documents casting doubt on which governmental entity first took custody of Hare, we are satisfied that the Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim was sufficiently reviewed based on facts in the record. It does not appear on appeal that the court erred in denying the Rule 60(b) motion, in light of the state and federal court records demonstrating that approximately eight and one-half months elapsed between filing the federal criminal complaint and Hare’s guilty plea and considering the factors to be weighed in a balancing test outlined in *Barker v. Wingo,*407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972),
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1461 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1461

 To provide transparency regarding waivers granted to individuals from 
 Executive orders related to ethics commitments or compliance, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2021

  Mr. Lynch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide transparency regarding waivers granted to individuals from 
 Executive orders related to ethics commitments or compliance, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``White House Ethics Transparency Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE FOR WAIVERS AND AUTHORIZATIONS RELATING TO ETHICS 
              REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
later than 30 days after an officer or employee issues or approves a 
waiver or authorization pursuant to any Executive order related to 
ethics commitments or compliance by covered employees, such officer or 
employee shall--
            (1) transmit a written copy of such waiver or authorization 
        to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics; and
            (2) make a written copy of such waiver or authorization 
        available to the public on the website of the employing agency 
        of the covered employee.
    (b) Office of Government Ethics Public Availability.--Not later 
than 30 days after receiving a written copy of a waiver or 
authorization under subsection (a)(1), the Director of the Office of 
Government Ethics shall make such waiver or authorization available to 
the public on the website of the Office of Government Ethics.
    (c) Definition of Covered Employee.--In this section, the term 
``covered employee''--
            (1) means a non-career Presidential or Vice Presidential 
        appointee, non-career appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
        (or other SES-type system), or an appointee to a position that 
        has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of 
        being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C 
        and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an 
        executive agency; and
            (2) does not include any individual appointed as a member 
        of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service 
        commissioned officer.
                                 <all>
```
Leo HENLEY v. STATE

CR-16-0074

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017 Reh. denied May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher LESSNER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10245 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

*386James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Michael Arthur Lehmann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Lessner pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Lessner to 63 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Lessner argues that the district court plainly erred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by imposing a sentence based on factual findings that were not supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed under current circuit law, but he raises the claim solely to preserve it for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Because Lessner’s arguments are indeed foreclosed by *United States v. Tuma,*738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), the Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED as unnecessary.'

*

 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,
#### The Inhabitants of Westbrook *versus*The Inhabitants of Gorham.

*K*settlement is gained, in the fifth mode prescribed in the statute, by possession of'an estate set at 200 dollars, and being assessed for the same five years successively, whether the taxes so assessed be paid or not

The question in this case was whether one *Butler,*a pauper, had acquired a settlement in *Westbrook.*It appeared that he had been assessed in the public taxes in the town of *Falmouth,*of which *Westbrook*then constituted a part, from the year 1794 to the year 1800, inclusive, for an estate set at more than 200 dollars in the valuation of estates made by the assessors. The pauper was at times insane, and, being in necessitous circumstances, had paid but a very small part of the taxes so assessed upon him, and the portion unpaid was finally abated by the assessors.

*Hopkins*and *Fitch,*for the plaintiffs,

argued that the abatement of the taxes, for the inability of the party to pay them, was tantamount to his having never been assessed ; and they cited an observation made by *Sewall,*J., in delivering the opinion of the Court in the case of *Billerica*vs. *Chelmsford:*(1) “An abatement supposes the assessment not duly made. If the tax be wholly abated, it is as if no assessment had been made ; and if the tax be partially abated, and the residue paid, then all that was duly assessed has been paid.”

* *Longfellow*and *Adams,*for the defendants,

contended that the payment of any part of the taxes assessed was not necessary to effect the settlement of the pauper. Under the fifth mode of acquiring a settlement, prescribed in the statute, (2) the possession of an estate of the value required, and being assessed for five years successively, *ipso facto,*conferred the settlement; and of this opinion was the Court.

(1)

5 *Mass. Rep.*396.

(2)

*Stat.*1793, c. 24, § 2.

*Plaintiff nonsuit.*
EX PARTE Derek B. SIMMS

CR-16-0148

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Petition for writ of prohibition dismissed.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50677 Summary Calendar

__________________ BILLIE RAY BEESON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus RONALD L. VALLADRES; MICHAEL F. MILLER; WILLIAM H. BROOKS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-352
- - - - - - - - - - December 21, 1995 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Texas prisoner Billie Ray Beeson alleges that members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (Board) violated ex post facto principles by extending the period between his parole reconsideration hearings from one year to two years. The change in parole review procedures did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Allison v. Kyle , 66 F.3d 71, 74 (5th Cir. 1995).No. 95-50677 -2- We decline to consider Beeson's arguments concerning the merits of the Board's decision to deny him parole and the handling of the case by the magistrate judge because Beeson did not raise those issues in the district court. Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 Yak Communications (USA), Inc. (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
Zwebner, Chief Executive Officer and 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, to the best of my knowledge:

       (1).       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

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


Date:  February 24, 2003                         By: /s/ Charles Zwebner
                                                     Charles Zwebner
                                                     Chief Executive Officer &
                                                     Principal Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6207 

To amend the National Quantum Initiative Act to accelerate the development 

of supply chain supporting technology for quantum information science, 

technology, and engineering to support United States competitiveness, 

reduce risks in the quantum supply chain, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mrs. SYKES (for herself and Mr. CRAWFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the National Quantum Initiative Act to accelerate 

the development of supply chain supporting technology 

for quantum information science, technology, and engineering to support United States competitiveness, reduce 

risks in the quantum supply chain, 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 ‘‘Support for Quantum 

5 Supply Chains Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6207 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECH2 NOLOGY SUPPORT FOR QUANTUM SUPPLY 

3 CHAINS. 

4 (a) AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL QUANTUM INI5 TIATIVE ACT.—Section 201 of the National Quantum Ini6 tiative Act (15 U.S.C. 8831) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (6), by striking the 

9 ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

10 (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the pe11 riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

12 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(8) shall establish or expand partnerships with 

15 public and private sector entities to— 

16 ‘‘(A) accelerate the development of domes17 tic quantum supply chain and supply chain-sup18 porting technologies; and 

19 ‘‘(B) reduce quantum supply chain 

20 vulnerabilities.’’; and 

21 (2) in subsection (b)(2)— 

22 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

23 ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

24 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the 

25 period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6207 IH

1 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

2 subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(D) to identify quantum supply chain and 

4 supply chain-supporting technologies necessary 

5 to ensure United States competitiveness in 

6 quantum information science, technology, and 

7 engineering.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EX PARTE Estervenico MITCHELL

(In re: Estervenico Mitchell v. Dr. Darryl Hamilton, M.D.)

2160579

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.