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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6638 

To amend title 10, United States Code, adjust the number of cadets to 

be nominated to the United States Military Academy, United States 

Naval Academy, and United States Airforce Academy and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. MOYLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, adjust the number 

of cadets to be nominated to the United States Military 

Academy, United States Naval Academy, and United 

States Airforce Academy 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 shall be cited as the ‘‘Guam Service Acad5 emy Equality Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6638 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOMINATIONS TO UNITED STATES MILITARY ACAD2 EMY. 

3 Section 7442. (a) of title 10 United States Code is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (8) by striking ‘‘Four cadets 

6 from Guam, nominated by the Delegate in Congress 

7 from Guam.’’ and inserting ‘‘Five cadets from 

8 Guam, nominated by the Delegate in Congress from 

9 Guam.’’ 

10 SEC. 3. NOMINATIONS TO UNITED STATES NAVAL ACAD11 EMY. 

12 Section 8454. (a) of title 10 United States Code is 

13 amended— 

14 (1) in paragraph (8) by striking ‘‘Four cadets 

15 from Guam, nominated by the Delegate in Congress 

16 from Guam.’’ and inserting ‘‘Five cadets from 

17 Guam, nominated by the Delegate in Congress from 

18 Guam.’’ 

19 SEC. 4. NOMINATIONS TO UNITED STATES AIRFORCE ACAD20 EMY. 

21 Section 9442. (a) of title 10 United States Code is 

22 amended— 

23 (1) in paragraph (8) by striking ‘‘Four cadets 

24 from Guam, nominated by the Delegate in Congress 

25 from Guam.’’ and inserting and inserting ‘‘Five caVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:37 Jan 04, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6638.IH H6638
3 

•HR 6638 IH

1 dets from Guam, nominated by the Delegate in Con2 gress from Guam.’’ 

Æ
#### Angel Luis CRUZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 10488.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 3, 1966.

Decided Oct. 31, 1966.

William L. Pope, Columbia, S. C. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant.

Thomas P. Simpson, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Having served his sentence and been released, Angel Cruz, nevertheless, seeks a new trial pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 because of his apprehension that unless his conviction and sentence are vacated he will not be able to resume employment as a merchant seaman.1 At the time he filed his petition, he was in custody. Query: Being now free, is he under a sufficient detriment to be entitled to the statutory relief authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 2255? See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1960); United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954).

It is unnecessary to decide this proce-dural and jurisdictional question2 for, on the merits, he is plainly entitled to no relief.

The record supports the district judge’s conclusion that Cruz had, at time of trial, a rational understanding and a factual grasp of the proceedings against him. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). We think, with the district court, that the petitioner intelligently waived his right to counsel when arraigned and had the requisite mental capacity to do so and to plead guilty.

*784There was ample compliance with Rule 11. Petitioner’s contentions to the contrary were carefully and patiently considered at a plenary hearing wherein all the facts were fully developed. See Cruz v. United States, 247 F.Supp. 835 (D.S.C. 1965). Petitioner’s absence at the hearing was with the consent of his counsel. Section 2255 specifically provides that a “court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.”

The findings contained in the memorandum of decision of the district court are supported by the record, and none of them are clearly erroneous. See Rakes v. United States, 352 F.2d 518 (4th Cir. 1965). The petitioner has not sustained his “burden of showing that he did not understand his constitutional rights.” Starks v. United States, 264 F.2d 797, 799 (4th Cir. 1959).

Affirmed.

1

. It is represented to us by counsel that the United States Coast Guard will not consider reissuing seaman’s papers to Cruz until three years after the date of his plea of guilty on September 15, 1964.

2

. Theoreticians may insist we have decided jurisdiction willy-nilly. See Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1960).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6176 

To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. MCCORMICK, Mr. CLOUD, 

Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. WALTZ, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. BANKS, 

Mr. MOONEY, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. FRY, Mr. GUEST, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. SELF, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. SMUCKER, Mr. MANN, Mr. 

ELLZEY, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. LATURNER, Mr. ROSE, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. 

OGLES, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mrs. HOUCHIN, 

Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. CARL, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. BEAN of Florida, and Mr. PALMER) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood 

Federation of America. 

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 ‘‘Protect Funding for 

5 Women’s Health Care Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6176 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds as follows: 

3 (1) State and county health departments, com4 munity health centers, hospitals, physicians’ offices, 

5 and other entities currently provide, and will con6 tinue to provide, health services to women. Such 

7 health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory 

8 and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and 

9 postpartum care, immunization, family planning 

10 services including contraception, sexually trans11 mitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer 

12 screenings, and referrals. 

13 (2) Many such entities provide services to all 

14 persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, 

15 and provide services in medically underserved areas 

16 and to medically underserved populations. 

17 (3) All funds no longer available to Planned 

18 Parenthood Federation of America will continue to 

19 be made available to other eligible entities to provide 

20 women’s health care services. 

21 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi23 sion of law, no Federal funds may be made available to 

24 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any of 

25 its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6176 IH

1 (b) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

2 shall be construed to— 

3 (1) affect any limitation contained in an appro4 priations Act relating to abortion; or 

5 (2) reduce overall Federal funding available in 

6 support of women’s health. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### GUIFEN HU, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 15-60868 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 25, 2017

Guifen Hu, Pro Se

*406Kristin A. Moresi, Trial- Attorney, Kristen Ann Giuffreda Chapman, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of.Justice, Office of Im- ■ migration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Guifen Hu is a native and citizen of China who entered this country legally but overstayed. She petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) determination that she was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because she was not credible. She argues that she can explain the discrepancies and omissions that resulted in the adverse credibility finding and asserts her entitlement to relief.

We “review only the BIA’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on” that decision. *Wang v. Holder,*569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief under the substantial evidence standard. *See Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” *Wang,*569 F.3d at 537.

An adverse credibility determination may be supported by *“any*inconsistency or omission,” provided that “the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” *Id.*at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of the record as a whole shows that the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the IJ and BIA on the issue whether Hu was credible. *See id.*at 537-40. As Hu has not presented credible evidence, showing- that she is entitled to asylum, she has not shown that she is entitled to withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. *See Dayo v. Holder,*687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012). Consequently,' her petition for review is 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.
#### Dalia MORALES-VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-71076

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 12, 2017

Dalia Morales-Velasquez, Pro Se

Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigra*308tion Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dalia Morales-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo questions of law. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying Morales-Velasquez’s withholding of removal claim the agency found she failed to establish Guatemalan authorities would have been unwilling or unable to control her persecutors because she did not report the abuse and failed to establish that doing so would have been futile or would have subjected her to further abuse. Further in reaching its conclusion as to whether the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to control Morales-Velasquez’s persecutors, the agency did not have the benefit of our decision in *Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions,*850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

In denying Morales-Velasquez’s claims, the agency also relied on a relocation finding. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s relocation determination, where Morales-Velasquez testified her abuser followed her from the United States to Guatemala, beat her, repeatedly raped her, and threatened to kill her for leaving without his permission. *See Mashiri v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 1112, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency finding that relocation would be safe and reasonable not supported in light of substantial evidence of threats of violence).

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Morales-Velasquez’s withholding of removal and CAT claims for further analysis consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*309ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|   | 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(a) 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                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the                Report. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August                14, 2008 |   | /s/                Kyle C. Cook                      |
|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated                          |   | Kyle                C. Cook                          |
|                           |   | Chief                Financial Officer and Treasurer |

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31(b)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data
Systems, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: October 22, 2003


/s/ Michael R. Sayre
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6588 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6588

      To require the Secretary of the Treasury to assess whether 
 international financial institutions, such as the International Bank 
for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund, 
      are sufficiently focused on preventing terrorist financing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2023

Ms. De La Cruz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To require the Secretary of the Treasury to assess whether 
 international financial institutions, such as the International Bank 
for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund, 
      are sufficiently focused on preventing terrorist financing.

    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 ``International Financial Institution 
Counter Terrorism Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FOCUS ON 
              TERRORIST FINANCING.

    (a) In General.--Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the Congress a 
written report that includes the following:
            (1) A list of the countries supported by the International 
        Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in this Act referred 
        to as the ``World Bank'') and the International Monetary Fund 
        (in this Act referred to as the ``IMF'').
            (2) A list of the activities and programs that the World 
        Bank and the IMF provide to member countries to combat 
        terrorist financing and anti-money laundering activities.
            (3) The total amount spent by the World Bank and the IMF on 
        providing the activities and programs referred to in paragraph 
        (2), and the total amount of Federal funds used for the 
        activities and programs in the 10-year period ending with such 
        date of enactment.
            (4) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities 
        and programs.
    (b) Recommendations.--Within 90 days after submitting to the 
Congress the report required by subsection (a), the Secretary of the 
Treasury shall, based on the information in the report, develop 
recommendations for measures to be implemented by the World Bank and 
the IMF which would enhance the efforts of the World Bank and the IMF 
to combat terrorist financing and anti-money laundering activities, and 
instruct the United States Executive Directors at the World Bank and 
the IMF to advocate for their respective institutions to implement the 
measures.
                                 <all>
```
CONTACT REPORT

Date/Time Project Name Project Number

December 15, 2011 

12:00pm

Ferroalloys RTR MME-411

Originator Contact Phone Number

Jonathan Averback Guy VanDoren, Lan Associates on behalf 

of Felman Production, Inc. N/A

General Subject

Today at about 12 noon I received a call from Guy VanDoren of Lan Associates. He called on 

behalf of Felman wanting to know the status of the request for an extension of the 

comment period for an additional 45 days. I indicated EPA is still considering the request, 

and I will let him know when there is a decision. He indicated the travel plans of some staff 

at Felman were pending on the outcome of EPA's decision.
TYPE:  EX-23.3

eCLIC, INC.

EXHIBIT 23.3 Consent from G. Brad Beckstead, CPA

March 24, 2000

To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report of
March 24, 2000, on the Financial Statements of eCLIC, Inc. for the period
March 1, 1999 (Date of Inception) to December 31, 1999, in any filings which
are necessary now or in the near future to be filed with the US Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/ G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
--------------------------
G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
Nevada License #2701


<PAGE>
#### Gabrielle Saeltzer, Respondent, *v.*Sarah Findull, Appellant.

(Argued March 26, 1872;

decided April 2, 1872.)

*Isaac L. Egbert*for the appellant.

*Geo. P. Avery*for the respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal. No opinion.
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2018
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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 result of operations
      of the Company.



|Date: March 7, 2019 | /s/
      Joseph Fuda        
|------------------- | -----------------------------
|                    | Joseph Fuda                  
|                    | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    | (Principal executive officer)

---