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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6625 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6625

To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report about the effects 
  on national security of the surveillance conducted by the People's 
Republic of China via the high-altitude surveillance balloon shot down 
 in the airspace of the United States in February 2023, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

 Mr. Fry (for himself, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Norman, Mr. Duncan, 
 Ms. Hageman, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Timmons, Mr. 
Rose, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Moylan, Mr. 
   Langworthy, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Biggs, and Mr. Posey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report about the effects 
  on national security of the surveillance conducted by the People's 
Republic of China via the high-altitude surveillance balloon shot down 
 in the airspace of the United States in February 2023, 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 ``Chinese Spy Balloon Assessment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON THE EFFECTS ON NATIONAL SECURITY OF CERTAIN 
              SURVEILLANCE CONDUCTED BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

    (a) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
President, shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives a report about the effects on 
national security of surveillance conducted by the People's Republic of 
China via the high-altitude surveillance balloon shot down in the 
airspace of the United States in February 2023, including--
            (1) a description of any such effects on military 
        installations; and
            (2) an analysis of any technology and materials recovered 
        from the high-altitude surveillance balloon, including each 
        country of origin of such technology and materials, if a 
        country of origin can be determined.
    (b) Form.--The report required under this section shall be 
submitted in an unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
    (c) Military Installation Defined.--In this section, the term 
``military installation'' has the meaning given such term in section 
2801 of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE: Riordan J. ZAVALA, also known as Riordan J. Zavala, Esq. also known as Law Offices of Riordan J. Zavala, Debtor. Riordan J. Zavala, Appellant, v. George A. Sharp, Appellee.

No. 16-55561

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Riordan J. Zavala, Pro Se

George A. Sharp, Pro Se

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Riordan J. Zavala appeals pro se. from the district court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen),*31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zavala’s appeal for failure to prosecute,' after granting two extensions of time to file an opening brief, warning that no further extensions would be granted, and providing an opportunity for Zavala to respond to an order to show cause prior to dismissal. *See id.*at 1451-56 (discussing factors to weigh in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that “[a] reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable” (citations omitted)); *see also*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4) (permitting district court to dismiss a bankruptcy appeal on its own motion, after notice, if an appellant fails to file a timely brief).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

    
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            111,359
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,671,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                       10,000
<INVENTORY>                                     6,884,707
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,961,364
<PP&E>                                             79,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                     19,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,454,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,212,145
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                           550
<COMMON>                                              389
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,491,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,454,611
<SALES>                                        14,614,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,614,706
<CGS>                                          11,750,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,750,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   165,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                        3,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               161,812
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      161,812
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .03
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.11 VIA EDGAR  TO: United States Securities and Exchange Commission  Re: Asanko Gold Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 40-F Consent of Expert This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2014, and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report), as filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Companys Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2014 (the Annual Information Form). I, Thomas K. Obiri-Yeboah, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:  · the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Companys Asanko Gold Mine Project, contained in the Annual Information Form, and  · the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.  Dated March 16, 2015  // Thomas Obiri-YeboahThomas K. Obiri-Yeboah
B. Sc Eng (Mining), Pr Eng
DRA Mining (Pty) Ltd
#### Jairo SEQUEIRA, a Citizen of the United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA, a foreign Country; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55417

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Jairo Sequeira, Pro Se

Janis H. Brennan, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington, DC, Andrew Z. Schwartz, Esquire, Foley' Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, David S. Shukan, Attorney, Jeffrey B. Valle, Esquire, Attorney, Valle Makoff LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jairo Sequeira appeals pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing his action against the sovereign defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissing his action against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), *Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia,*106 F.3d 302, 304-05 (9th Cir. 1997), and determinations as to personal jurisdiction, *Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.,*611 F.3d 601, 608 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court dismissed Sequiera’s first amended complaint against the sovereign defendants with prejudice because Se-queira did not produce evidence that an exception to immunity under the FSIA applied. However, Sequiera was not required to produce such evidence in re*480sponse to a facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction. *See Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq,*694 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth burden-shifting framework of the FISA and explaining that in facial jurisdictional challenges a presumption of truthfulness attaches to allegations in the complaint). We therefore reverse the dismissal of the claims against the sovereign defendants and remand for further proceedings.

The district court properly dismissed the second amended complaint against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because the allegations did not establish that the individual defendants purposefully availed themselves of a United States forum, *see Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc.,*485 F.3d 450, 458 (9th Cir. 2007) (defendants did not assent to the forum selection clause), or purposefully directed any activities toward the United States, *see Love,*611 F.3d at 609 (defendant’s alleged intentional acts were not directed at the forum state).

Sequeira’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 13) is granted insofar as it requests that we limit our review to the district court record. All other requests set forth in that motion (Docket Entry No. 13) are denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Pivotal  Corporation  (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended  June 30,  2002 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Divesh  Sisodraker,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


                                                /s/ Divesh Sisodraker
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Divesh Sisodraker
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                August 28, 2002
Record of Conversation:

September 22, 2016

The FAA had a discussion with Eric Corban, of Guided Systems Technologies (GST), for Leading Edge 

Associates regarding their petition for exemption (FAA-2015-0346); specifically the 78-pound 

Precision Vision 30 (alternately referred to as the GST SiCX-25 UAS. Leading Edge described the audio 

and visual alarms that alert the pilot when a low battery voltage is sensed, which is a sufficient 

system to safely handle a generator system failure. Leading Edge uses slides to train their pilots on 

quantifying distances from people, setting the warning system, the possibility of drifting, and seeing 

the “minimum altitude” setting based on local terrain. As a “fault” warning could result from 

operation in dusty conditions, over water, or in low visibility conditions such as fog or precipitation, 

the above ground level (AGL) estimate is now computed via the GPS, the altimeter, and a terrain 

database. Regarding the operational velocity for a typical flight, Leading Edge’s spraying speed is a 

function of weight and would use near maximum speed in the clean configuration. Since the SiCX-25 

has no cover or shell, the long range cruise (LRC) is typically 35 miles per hour (MPH).

Material Owed to the FAA from GST

 Training slides

 Flight speeds 

o Maximum

o Cross wind tail rotor authority

o With spray boom
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8), pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1998 Stock
Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8), pertaining to the Beauty.com,
Inc. Stock Plan, of our report dated January 21, 2000, except as to Note 10,
as to which the date is February 2, 2000, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of drugstore.com, inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 2, 2000.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington
February 24, 2000
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6007 - INDA 2006-AR3 (GS)



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30612, 333-39068, 333-103198, 333-119764, 333-119772, 333-120303 and 333-120304) of Blockbuster Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

March 15, 2006
#### Daniel Thomas LANAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATUXENT INSTITUTION; Tanika Amason; Correctional Officer Anderson; Unknown Officers; Warden; Assistant Warden; State of Maryland; Mental Health Management Company; Doctor Moghe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6591

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Daniei Thomas Lanahan, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Thomas Lanahan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel, declining to appoint a guardian ad litem, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20Í2) civil action as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lanahan’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s rulings, Lanahan has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Barrington Broadcasting Group LLC and Barrington Broadcasting CapitalCorporation (together, the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, K. James Yager, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ K. James Yager        |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | K. James Yager            |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|   |                      |
|   | March 27, 2008       |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
#### Edward Hincken et al., Executors, etc., Respondents, *v.*The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

(Argued June 13, 1872;

decided June 20, 1872.)

This action was upon a policy of life insurance for $10,000 upon the life of Peter Rice, which sum was agreed to he paid *“*within ninety days after due notice and proof of interest and of the death of said Peter Rice.” Upon the trial the only evidence of compliance with this condition was in response to the following question, asked a witness by defendant’s counsel: *“*Did you deliver preliminary proofs ?” The witness answered that he did, at defendant’s office, and fixed the time more than ninety days before the commencement of the suit. At the close of the evidence defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs were bound to produce in evidence the proofs served, or some proofs, to show a performance of the condition precedent, furnishing due proof of Rice’s death ninety days before suit brought.

The motion was denied and plaintiffs obtained a verdict. *Held,*that the fact that preliminary proofs had been delivered was some evidence of the performance of the condition precedent, and these proofs being in defendant’s possession, and it not having accounted for or produced them, and having received and retained them, as far as appears, without objection, it would not be assumed that they were defective, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

*658
      *Alvin C. Bradley*for the appellant.

*George G. Reynolds*for the respondents.

Allen, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
Order entered October 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00747-CR

STEWART CARTER HURST, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 32486CR

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due July 21, 2019. When it was not filed, we notified court 

reporter Julie Vrooman by postcard dated July 24, 2019 and directed her to file (1) the reporter’s 

record, (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded, or (3) written verification that 

appellant had not requested the reporter’s record by August 23, 2019. No response was filed.

On September 10, 2019, we ordered the complete reporter’s record filed by October 4, 

2019. We cautioned Ms. Vrooman that the failure to file the reporter’s record by that date might 

result in the Court taking whatever remedies it has available to ensure that the appeal proceeds in 

a timely fashion, which might include ordering that she not sit until the complete reporter’s 

record is filed. To date, no reporter’s record has been filed, and we have had no communication 

from Ms. Vrooman.
We ORDER that court reporter Julie C. Vroom NOT SIT as a court reporter until she 

has filed the complete reporter’s record in this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Keli Aiken, 

Presiding Judge, 354th Judicial District Court; Julie Vrooman, official court reporter, 354th 

Judicial District Court; to the Hunt County Auditor’s Office and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE