alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Priday, Appellant, *v.*Rockaway Operating Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Henry D. Sforza*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless appeal is perfected and appellant pays ten dollars costs within ten .days, in which event the motion is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6538 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6538

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a definition of 
       ``establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee 
  compensation'' for purposes of the collective bargaining of certain 
               Department of Veterans Affairs employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2023

 Mr. Takano (for himself and Mr. Bost) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a definition of 
       ``establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee 
  compensation'' for purposes of the collective bargaining of certain 
               Department of Veterans Affairs employees.

    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 ``VA Correct Compensation Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ``ESTABLISHMENT, DETERMINATION, OR ADJUSTMENT OF 
              EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION'' FOR PURPOSES OF THE COLLECTIVE 
              BARGAINING OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              EMPLOYEES.

    Subsection (c) of section 7422 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) In this section:
            ``(1) The term `professional conduct or competence' means 
        any of the following:
                    ``(A) Direct patient care.
                    ``(B) Clinical competence.
            ``(2) The term `establishment, determination, or adjustment 
        of employee compensation'--
                    ``(A) means setting a rate of pay as required by 
                applicable law, rule, or regulation; and
                    ``(B) does not include a grievance challenging 
                whether an employee described in section 7421(b) of 
                this title has received the correct compensation as 
                required by law, rule, regulation, or binding 
                agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### John B. Stanchfield. Resp’t, v. Benedict Harford, App’lt.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6725 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6725

To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish additional factors 
  that determine pathways in the Transition Assistance Program of the 
                         Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2023

Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Arrington, and Ms. Houlahan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish additional factors 
  that determine pathways in the Transition Assistance Program of the 
                         Department of Defense.

    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 ``Transition Improvement by Estimating 
Risk Act'' or the ``TIER Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO PATHWAYS FOR COUNSELING IN THE TRANSITION 
              ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    Section 1142(c)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``Disability'' and 
        inserting ``Potential or confirmed disability'';
            (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``Character'' and 
        inserting ``Potential or confirmed character'';
            (3) by redesignating subparagraph (M) as subparagraph (R); 
        and
            (4) by inserting after subparagraph (L) the following:
            ``(M) Child care requirements of the member (including 
        whether a dependent of the member is enrolled in the 
        Exceptional Family Member Program).
            ``(N) The employment status of other adults in the 
        household of the member.
            ``(O) The location of the duty station of the member 
        (including whether the member was separated from family while 
        on duty).
            ``(P) The effects of operating tempo and personnel tempo on 
        the member and the household of the member.
            ``(Q) Whether the member is an Indian or urban Indian, as 
        those terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care 
        Improvement Act (Public Law 94-437; 25 U.S.C. 1603).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Aaron R. Stevens *et al.,*App’Its, v. The Union Trust Co. *et*al., Resp’ts.

Order modified by denying motion to make petitioners defendants, but requiring plaintiffs to serve on their attorney notice of application for judgment or of discontinuance or other disposition of the case in like manner as if they were parties and without prejudice to a renewal of this application. No costs to either party.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 20 11

- NM

- 232

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### In the Matter of New York Telephone Company, Appellant. William F. Canough, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Respondent. (2 Proceedings — 1941 and 1940 Assessments.)

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 19, 1943.

Motion to amend the remittitur denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing-disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 537.)
#### Nelson Goetschius, Resp’t, v. John E. Hunt, App’lt.

*Wm. McCauley, Jr.,*for resp’t; *Irving Brawn,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 24 N. Y. State Rep., 717.
#### Carrie Anthony, as Administratrix of the Estate of Tracy A. Anthony, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Jennie Schofield, Appellant.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*Alton J. Wightman*for motion.

*George A. King*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report), I, David W. Neibert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §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.



Date: March 20, 2008



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ David W. Neibert   
| | David W. Neibert       
| | Chief Executive Officer



The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>   1
23.1 Consent of Accountants


                                                  ARTHUR ANDERSEN
                                                  Arthur Andersen & Co.
                                                  21st Floor Edinburgh Tower
                                                  The Landmark
                                                  15 Queen's Road, Central
                                                  Hong Kong

                                                  Tel 852 2552 0222
                                                  Fax 852 2815 0648


March 30, 2000

The Board of Directors
Paddington Inc.
1220 North Market Street
Suite 606, Wilmington
Delaware 19801
United States of America

For the attention of Mr. Yu King-Kwok


Dear Sirs,

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated March 30, 2000 included in
Registration Statement File No. 0-26049.



Very truly yours,

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO.
### The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3274

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Ronald Bruner, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1997 Filed: May 13, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ronald Bruner appeals the 192-month sentence imposed by the district co urt after he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent t o

1 distribute, in violat ion of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Bruner challenges the court' s reliance on a codefendant's testimony in determining that th e gov ernment had supported the presentence report's drug-quantit y calculations by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the district court prope rly considered the codefendant's testimony and did not clearly err in its drug- quantity finding. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 6A1.3(a)

### -2-

(1995) (court may consider any relevant evidence in its sentencin g determi nation as long as it has "sufficient indicia of reliability t o support its probable accuracy"); U.S. SentencingGuidelines Manual § 2D1.1 commen t. (n.12) (1995) (drug quantities not specified in count o f conviction may be con sidered in determining offense level; where there is no drug seizure or am ount seized does not reflect scale of offense, court must approximate drug quantity); United States v. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468 , 1472 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for drug-quantity finding). The co urt acknowledged the codefendant's incentive to be untruthful, an d nonetheless found his testimony credible. See Adipietro , 983 F.2d at 1472 (court's credibility findings are virtually unassailable on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Canterbury Resources, Inc.: Exhibit 10.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






	May 16, 2012 
	 
	FINANCING AGREEMENT 


     This Financing Agreement between
Canterbury Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”)
and Hartford Equity Inc. (“Hartford”), sets forth the proposed
terms for an investment in the Company (this “Agreement”).

	1. 	
      The Company desires to raise up to $2,000,000 through the
      sale of shares of its common stock at $0.50 per share and warrants to
      purchase one (1) share of common stock of the Company with an exercise
      price of $0.75 per share and a term of 18 months (the
      “Financing”). These securities will not be registered and
      will be subject to Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as
      amended.

	 	 
	2. 	
      Hartford will purchase $300,000 of shares of common stock
      of the Company under the Financing promptly after execution of this
      Agreement. Additionally, Hartford agrees to either (i) invest an
      additional $1,700,000 in the Financing, or (ii) assist the Company in
      securing a portion of such Financing from alternate sources within the
      time period specified by the Company to meet its funding obligations. For
      the avoidance of doubt, in the event that Hartford is unable to secure
      financing from alternate sources, Hartford will either (i) invest the
      amount agreed upon, or (ii) will fund the missing amount itself. The
      investor providing such Financing will provide all information regarding
      such investor as may be required for the Company to comply with all
      applicable securities or other laws relating to the private placement of
      securities, including, as applicable, an accredited investor
      questionnaire, a Regulation S questionnaire and representations required
      under the United States Patriot Act.

	 	 
	3. 	
      In the event Hartford assists the Company in securing the
      Financing from other sources, Hartford will not be entitled to any
      finder’s fee or other compensation for such service.

	 	 
	4. 	
      The Company and Hartford acknowledge and agree that there
      are no intended third party beneficiaries of this Agreement.

	 	 
	5. 	
      This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and
      governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada, and each party separately
      and unconditionally subjects itself to the jurisdiction of any court of
      competent authority in the State of Nevada. This Agreement may be executed
      in counterparts, with the same effect as if the signatures to each such
      counterpart were upon a single instrument.

	 	 
	6. 	
      Hartford warrants that it has the capacity to fully
      fulfill its financial obligations under this
Agreement.




	CANTERBURY RESOURCES, INC. 
	  	 	 	  	 
	  	 	 	  	 
	  	 	 	  	 
	By: 	 	 	Address: 	 
	Name: 	 	 	  	 
	Title: 	 	 	  	 






The foregoing terms of this Agreement are hereby accepted.

	 	 	 	 	 
	HARTFORD EQUITY INC. 
	  	 	 	  	 
	  	 	 	  	 
	  	 	 	  	 
	By: 	 	 	Address: 	 
	Name: 	 	 	  	 
	Title:
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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the Company)
for the period ending December 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dawn G. Lepore, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Dawn G. LeporeDawn G. LeporePresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

March 13, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeremiah J. WATSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1197

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 6, 2017

Filed: October 25, 2017

Keith D. Sorrell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jennifer Leigh Booth, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Defendant-Appellant

Jeremiah J. Watson, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Jeremiah Watson challenges the 120-month sentence the district court1 imposed upon re-sentencing, following its grant of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson v. United States, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). His counsel has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the court did not adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Watson has filed a pro se brief raising the same argument as counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Watson within the Guidelines range; in particular, the court did not commit an error of judgment in weighing the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### Names v. Names.

| 1. Appeal: not shown by abstract. Where the abstract does not state or show that an appeal was taken, this court cannot entertain the case, except to dismiss it.

2. -: equity case : EVIDENCE wanting. A cause triable *de novo*in this court cannot be considered where it is not averred or shown that the abstract contains all the evidence.

*Appeal from We~bster District Court.—*ITon. S. M. Weaver, Judge.

Filed, March 12, 1888.

*214Action for a divorce. Defendant, in a cross-petition, also asked for a divorce. Both petition and cross-petition were dismissed by the district court, and both parties appealed. The decree dismissing the plaintiff’s petition was reversed, and the cause remanded for a decree granting plaintiff a divorce. See 67 Iowa, 381. When the case again reached the district court, it appears that there was' a trial to determine to which of the parties should be awarded the custody of an only child, a 'daughter. A decree was entered granting it to defendant. The case is again brought here by plaintiff.

*J. F.*Buncombe, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Beck, J.

The case is not in a condition to be considered by this court, for two reasons : (1) The abstract before us, upon which the case is submitted, does not show that an appeal was taken. We cannot presume that the case has been appealed, and the failure to present evidence of the taking of the appeal, or an allegation thereof in the abstract, is not waived by the appearance of defendant. (2) The abstract before us fails to state that it contains all the evidence. All there is on the subject is a statement that the evidence was certified by the reporter and judge before whom the case was tried, but it is not averred or shown that the abstract contains all the evidence so certified. The case, if it may be determined here at all, is for trial *de novo.*

In view of these facts, and the non-appearance of defendant, accounted for, doubtless, by the fact that the abstract presents no case of which we can take cognizance, we can do nothing but order the case to be

Dismissed.
Order filed February 2, 2012.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 11

- 01034

- CV

____________

UNION PACIFIC RAILRO AD COMPANY , Appellant

V.

WALLACE L. MEEKS, JA MES M. GRAHAM, JR. A ND TOMMY C. THOMPSON , Appellees

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 33406



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due January 16, 2012

. No brief or motion for extension of time has

been filed.
Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of t his court on or before March 2, 2012 , the
court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00393-CR

Annisa Radie Williams, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 61100, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Annisa Radie Williams seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for possession of

a controlled substance. The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Williams has

no right of appeal, and also that Williams waived the right of appeal. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d

218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 26, 2007

Do Not Publish