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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 662 

To amend the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 to 

improve disaster relief funding for agricultural producers, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2023 

Mr. C. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida (for himself and Ms. WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations 

Act, 2023 to improve disaster relief funding for agricultural producers, 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 ‘‘Block Grant Assistance 

5 Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISASTER RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIA7 TIONS ACT, 2023 AMENDMENT. 

8 Title I of the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appro9 priations Act, 2023 (division N of Public Law 117–328), 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 662 IH

1 is amended, in the matter under the heading ‘‘OFFICE OF

2 THE SECRETARY’’ under the heading ‘‘PROCESSING, RE3 SEARCH AND MARKETING’’ under the heading ‘‘AGRI4 CULTURAL PROGRAMS’’ under the heading ‘‘DE5 PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’’, by inserting ‘‘: Pro6 vided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may pro7 vide assistance for losses described under this heading in 

8 this Act in the form of block grants to eligible States and 

9 territories’’ before the period at the end. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                State of Incorporation  Doing Business As
----                                ---------------------- --------------------
<S>                                 <C>                    <C>
RealSelect, Inc. .................  Delaware               N/A
The Enterprise of America, Ltd. ..  Wisconsin              N/A
National New Homes Co., Inc. .....  Delaware               HomeBuilder.com
SpringStreet, Inc. ...............  California             SpringStreet.com
HomeBuyer's Fair, Inc. ...........  Arizona                HomeFair.com,
                                                           FAS Hotline, and FAS
                                                           Relocation Network
WyldFyre Technologies, Inc. ......  California             N/A
Touchtech Corporation.............  Ontario, Canada        N/A
Homestore Mobility Technologies,
 Inc. ............................  Delaware               N/A
The Hessel Group, Inc. ...........  Connecticut            N/A
The Hessel Group Limited..........  England and Wales      N/A
Top Producer Systems Company......  Nova Scotia, Canada    N/A
Top Producer Systems Corp. .......  Washington             N/A
Homestore Virtual Tours, Inc. ....  Delaware               N/A
VT Canada Inc. ...................  Ontario, Canada        N/A
Transco Platform, Inc. ...........  Delaware               eREALTOR.com
FireTap Communications............  Delaware               N/A
iMOVE.com, Inc. ..................  Delaware               N/A
HomeWrite Incorporated............  Delaware               N/A
Homestore International Limited...  British Virgin Islands N/A
Move.com, Inc. ...................  Delaware               N/A
Rent Net, Inc. ...................  Delaware               N/A
Welcome Wagon International
 Inc. ............................  New York               N/A
Homestore Facilities Company......  Delaware               N/A
Homestore Sales Company...........  Delaware               N/A
Homestore Service Company.........  Delaware               N/A
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the twenty four weeks ended September 10,
1996 included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-10-1996
<CASH>                                          41,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,900
<INVENTORY>                                     71,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               290,000
<PP&E>                                       1,256,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 540,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,163,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          215,200
<BONDS>                                          1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     582,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,163,700
<SALES>                                        752,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               752,300
<CGS>                                          450,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  450,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      520
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2








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 Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David A.
        Heaberlin, Chief 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.

















Date:
                August 9, 2007
            By:/s/
                David A. HeaberlinDavid
                A. HeaberlinChief
                Financial Officer
****

**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk Communications Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)         This  AmendmentNo. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities ExchangeAct.
#### Michael Gene PARR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Doctor NFN WRIGHT, Hughes Unit c/o University of Texas Medical Branch; Doctor NFN Green, Hughes Unit c/o University of Texas Medical Branch, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-50368

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 1, 2017

*287Michael Gene Parr, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Gene Parr, Texas prisoner # 1716676, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Parr is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

According to Parr, he has received inadequate medical care while incarcerated in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His allegations include claims that the defendants prescribed treatment and exercises for prior injuries to his hand that were ineffective and that the defendants delayed in referring him to a nerve .specialist. He claims that the delay resulted in muscle loss to his hand. His pleadings do not identify a specific, substantial risk of serious harm to his health that prison officials have knowingly or wantonly disregarded. Accordingly, he has failed to meet the extremely high standard for deliberate indifference necessary to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); *Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice,*239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001); *Johnson v. Treen,*759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985).

Parr has failed to demonstrate that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits.” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*288The district court’s dismissal of the complaint and our dismissal of the appeal count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015). Parr previously accrued two strikes when his complaints were dismissed in *Parr v. Rowe,*No. 5:11-cv-00085 (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2012) and *Parr v. Rowe,*No. 5:14-cv-00119 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2014). Accordingly, he is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g). We caution Parr that any additional frivolous appeals will invite the imposition of sanctions.

*

 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
13.1




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 Annual Report of AudioCodes Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shabtai Adlersberg,
Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief 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 my knowledge:




(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: June
      29, 2010/s/ Shabtai AdlersbergShabtai
      AdlersbergChief
      Executive Officer and
                Interim
      Chief Financial Officer
---

Exhibit 13.2

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, Dan Amadori, 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, 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/
      Dan Amadori        
|------------------- | -----------------------------
|                    | Dan Amadori                  
|                    | Chief Financial Officer      
|                    | (Principal financial officer)

---
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*EDWARD WEARING

*Lawrence R. Pellett,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

Decided October 22, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 741 (AC 15214), is denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-61070 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NICKEY LYNN HAIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:04-CR-181-1

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nickey Lynn Haire appeals following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The district court sentenced Haire based on his status as an armed career criminal under § 924(e)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 because Haire has three previous convictions for burglary of a dwelling. Although Haire incorrectly characterizes his sentence as falling under the “career offender” provision of U.S.S.G.No. 05-61070 -2- § 4B1.1 rather than the ACCA and § 4B1.4, he reiterates arguments that he raised in the district court, where he cited the correct provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. Haire argues that his sentence was unreasonable and violated United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because a sentence enhancement was required based on the fact of his prior convictions without regard to the underlying facts of those convictions. He contends that the violent nature of his prior convictions had to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Haire’s arguments are unavailing. The ACCA requires a mandatory sentence of at least 15 years for a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm who has three previous convictions for a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense” committed on different occasions.
See § 924(e)(1). The statute specifically enumerates burglary as a violent felony. § 924(e)(2) (B)(ii). Haire admitted as part of his guilty plea that he possessed a firearm and that he had been previously convicted of three burglary offenses committed on separate occasions. Therefore, the ACCA was correctly applied.
See United States v. Medina-Gutierrez , 980 F.2d 980, 982 (5th Cir. 1992); see also § 4B1.4. The district court’s sentence of Haire as an armed career criminal did not violate Booker or the Constitution because the additional facts and nature of the prior convictions did not require a finding by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. White , 465 F.3d 250, 251No. 05-61070 -3- (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Brown , 437 F.3d 450, 451 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6875

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00001-JCC-4)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Steven 

Donald Mellin, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Jones appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States 

v. Jones, No. 1:08-cr-00001-JCC-4 (E.D. Va. June 10, 2010);

United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, __ 

U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 321 (2009) (noting that defendant convicted 

of a crack offense, but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory 

statutory minimum sentence, is ineligible for a reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2)). 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
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the generalpartner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 14, 2007                         |                  |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                                          |                  |
| By                                            | /s/ BARBRA E.  KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                              |                  |
| Chief Financial  Officer                      |                  |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |                  |
|                                               |                       |  |

 

----
#### Anthony Gregory LAPOINTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown BIENOVIDAS, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16713

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 6, 2017*

Filed July 10, 2017

Anthony Gregory LaPointe, Pro Se

Claudia Acosta Collings, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Anthony Gregory LaPointe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment grant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to serious threats to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because LaPointe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the defendants consciously ignored, failed to respond, or were otherwise deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to LaPointe. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying LaPointe’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion be*630cause LaPointe failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Tatum v. City & Cty. of S.F.,*441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a movant to “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment”).

We reject as without merit LaPointe’s contention that the district court erred by withdrawing its referral of defendants’ summary judgment motion to a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); *Landis v. N. Am. Co.,*299 U.S. 248, 264, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30614

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO RENE FLORES,

also known as Francisco Flores,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisana

USDC No. 00-CR-351-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

December 11, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Rene Flores appeals his guilty plea conviction for

illegally reentering into the United States following deportation

after the commission of an aggravated felony. Flores contends

that his guilty plea should be vacated because the district court

violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3) by omitting the word “jury”

when admonishing Flores of his right to a trial.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that, because the district court’s omission did

not affect Flores’ substantial rights, the error was harmless. 
No. 01-30614 

-2-

United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993)(en

banc); United States v. Caston, 615 F.2d 1111, 1114-16 (5th Cir.

1980).

AFFIRMED.