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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6181 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6181

To authorize the Secretary of State to support the establishment of an 
       ASEAN Center in the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 2, 2023

Mr. Castro of Texas (for himself and Mr. Issa) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of State to support the establishment of an 
       ASEAN Center in the United States, 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 ``U.S.-ASEAN Center Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ASEAN CENTER.

    (a) Defined Term.--In this section, the term ``ASEAN'' means the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
    (b) Establishment.--The Secretary of State is authorized to enter 
into a public-private partnership for the purposes of establishing a 
US-ASEAN Center in the United States to support United States economic 
and cultural engagement with Southeast Asia.
    (c) Functions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
Secretary of State and the US-ASEAN Center established pursuant to 
subsection (b) may--
            (1) provide grants for research to support and elevate the 
        importance of the US-ASEAN partnership;
            (2) facilitate activities to strengthen US-ASEAN trade and 
        investment;
            (3) expand economic and technological relationships between 
        ASEAN countries and the United States into new areas of 
        cooperation;
            (4) provide training to United States citizens and citizens 
        of ASEAN countries that improve people-to-people ties;
            (5) develop educational programs to increase awareness for 
        the United States and ASEAN countries on the importance of 
        relations between the United States and ASEAN countries; and
            (6) carry out other activities the Secretary considers 
        necessary to strengthen ties between the United States and 
        ASEAN countries and achieve the objectives of the US-ASEAN 
        Center.
    (d) Authority.--This section may be carried out using any amounts 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State, including 
amounts authorized to carry out chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.).
    (e) Parameters.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 
ensure that the activities of the US-ASEAN Center do not duplicate 
current lines of effort being conducted by the United States Government 
or its grantees.
                                 <all>
```
#### FANENE of Nuuuli, Plaintiff v. SIMI YANDALL of Nuuuli, Defendant

No. 5-1935

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Matai Name: “Seigafo” of Nuuuli]

November 13, 1936

DECISION

The High Court convened at the Courthouse in Fagatogo on Thursday November 12, 1936 at 9:00 a.m. to hear the above entitled action before *Chief Justice*WOOD, *District Judges*PULETU and MULI

In the case of *Maluia v. Fanene*(High Court 1908) the point at issue was the ownership of the lands “Lalotoga” and “Asofitu.”

Seigafo testified in this case on behalf of “Fanene” and his testimony was: that although Seigafo had formerly *536owned these lands, he had given them absolutely (to) to Fanene.

In the present case Simi Yandall, a young boy, comes before the Court as a claimant for the name Seigafo. Fanene objects to the name being given to anyone.

It appears by the testimony of Seigafo that there has been no holder of that name in American Samoa for thirty six years, and the only reason advanced for the appointment of a new holder of the name is that there should be some matai to look after the family lands.

As it appears by the testimony of Seigafo himself that there are no lands of the family to be looked after and as there has been no holder of the name in American Samoa for over thirty six years, it would seem that to appoint a holder of the name at this time would be equivalent to throwing a match upon a fire which has long ago burnt out.

It is further the conviction of this court that the proponent of this name, who is a very young man and who is the great, great, great grandson of a former holder of the name (if the testimony of Seigafo can be believed) would be but a tool in the hands of some old chiefs in the Village of Nuuuli and Fagatogo to endeavor to get possession of the lands in Nuuuli (Asofitu and Lalotoga) many years ago perhaps owned by the name Seigafo.

The Court accordingly will not appoint a Seigafo and assesses cost of $25.00 upon the proponent — $10.00 for hearing Seigafo’s testimony in August 1935 and $15.00 for the session of court held 12 November 1936.
#### WILD EQUITY INSTITUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17502

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed August 28, 2017

Matt Kenna, Attorney, Durango, CO, Brent Plater, Wild Equity Institute, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Bridget McNeil, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Denver, CO, Brian C. Toth, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Wild Equity filed this suit claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must reinitiate Endangered Species Act consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service about a 2001 permit because 1) new information shows the power plant authorized under the permit is causing greater harm to protected species than understood in 2001, and 2) “discretionary Federal involvement or control over [an agency] action has been retained or is authorized by law.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.16; see *also*16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).

The district court dismissed this case on the ground that there is no federal agency action on which the EPA could consult— the 2001 permit expired before construction was complete and now has no operative effect. Wild Equity’s position on appeal is that as long as there was agency action in the past and the agency has some discretion over the subject matter of that agency action, the conditions for reinitiation are met. No new or ongoing agency action is required.

The district court is correct. Although the 2001 permit was “agency action” at the time of its issuance, its expiration severed any connection to subsequent plant operation. The current plant operation cannot be plausibly described as “authorized ... by” the expired 2001 permit. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Wild Equity offers no viable statutory interpretation or case law to bridge that gap.

Because the plant was being operated without a valid permit, the EPA brought a civil enforcement suit that was settled with a consent decree in 2011, allowing the plant to remain in operation. Any argument that this consent decree constitutes agency action is waived by Wild Equity’s statement that it “does not rely on the consent decree as a triggering event” requiring EPA to reinitiate consultation. *See**844*United States v. Laurienti,*611 F.3d 530, 543 (9th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-11894) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13268) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F), as amended, and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F), on Form S-8 (File Number 333-105473) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13378) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001 Employee Stock Purchase PlanGlobal Non-U.S. and the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001 U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 25, 2004 with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of AudioCodes Ltd., included in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (Form 20-F/A) for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with Securities and Exchange Commission.







|KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
A Member of Ernst & Young Global |  | Tel - Aviv, Israel
September 22, 2004
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
SPAR GROUP, INC.


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the three month period
ended March 31, 2006 (this "report"),  of SPAR Group,  Inc. (the  "registrant"),
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

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

         2. The  information  contained in the report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant.

                                     /s/ Charles Cimitile
                                     --------------------
                                     Charles Cimitile
                                     Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
                                     Secretary
                                     May 15, 2006


A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO SPAR GROUP,  INC.  AND WILL BE  RETAINED  BY SPAR GROUP,  INC.,  AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.


                                      Ex-4
**Exhibit 23.2**

** **

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement (No. 333-256366) on Form N-2 of Saratoga Investment Corp. of our report dated May 4, 2022 with respect to the statementsof assets and liabilities, including the schedules of investments, as of February 28, 2022 and 2021, and the related statements of operations,changes in net assets, and cash flows for the years ended February 28, 2022 and 2021, and the related notes to the financial statementsof Saratoga Investment Corp. CLO 2013-1, Ltd. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Saratoga Investment Corp. for the year endedFebruary 28, 2022.

 

/s/ CohnReznick LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

May 4, 2022
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of John C. G. Wolter, Deceased. David E. Peugeot, as Executor, et al., Respondents; Harvey G. Wolter, Appellant.

Argued October 11, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*720
      *Matthew A. Tiffany*for appellant.

*James A. Deck-op, David E. Peugeot*(proponent-respondent in person) and *Joseph E. Conners*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties filing separate briefs payable out of the estate. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Chester L. BIRD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE PENITENTIARY WARDEN; Wyoming Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-8053

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed September 26, 2017

(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00111-NDF) (D. Wyoming)

Chester L. Bird, Pro Se

Before BRISCOE, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Chester Loyde Bird, a Wyoming state prisoner appearing pro se, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application because it was a second or successive petition. The court also denied Bird’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, stating that Bird failed to assert a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on appeal and that his appeal would not be taken in good faith. We deny a COA and Bird’s renewed motion to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss this matter.

*614To be entitled to a COA, Bird must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

In its order, the court noted that Bird’s most recent habeas application was nearly identical to the one he filed in February 2017, and therefore second or successive. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) (“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.”).

“A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive ... § 2254 claim until this court has granted the required authorization.” *In re Cline,*531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Bird’s application for a COA does not address the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction because the application was successive and filed without this court’s authorization, and we discern no basis for concluding that jurists of reason would find the correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling debatable.

Further, because Bird has not presented “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” *McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,*115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), we deny leave to proceed IFP.

*

**This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Epitacio CABRERA-CASTILLO, also known as Charangas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10127 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 11, 2017

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

Seth Kretzér, Law Offices of Seth Kret-zer, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Epitacio Cabrera-Castillo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine *782with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment followed by four years of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges two conditions of supervised release imposed in the judgment. In response, the Government argues that this court should dismiss the appeal as untimely.

A defendant in a criminal case generally has 14 days from the entry of the judgment on the criminal docket to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i), (b)(6). That time limit is mandatory but not jurisdictional. *United States v. Martinez,*496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (6th Cir. 2007). Cabrera-Castillo’s notice of appeal was not filed in a timely manner. Although the requirements of Rule 4(b)(1)(A) may be waived, the Government has not waived the issue in the instant case. *See United States v. Hernandez-Gomez,*795 F.3d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (holding that the Government .does not waive its objection to the untimeliness of a notice of appeal by raising the issue for the first time in a brief on the merits).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *782published and is not. precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Katherine L. Scherping, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of National CineMedia, 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;

Date: April 10, 2018

 

| /s/ Katherine L. Scherping                                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Katherine L. Scherping

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, Barry Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of
Advanced ID Corporation (the 'Company"), hereby certify, that to the
best of my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 15, 2003

/s/Barry I. Bennet
--------------------
Chief Executive Officer


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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, Todd Noble, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced
ID Corporation (the 'Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my
knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: August 15, 2003

/s/Todd Noble
--------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### PLL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. XILINX, INC., Appellee

2016-2219

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 13, 2017

Matthew Carmine Phillips, Laurence & Phillips IP Law LLP, Portland, OR, argued for appellant. Also represented by Derek Meeker; Steve Wong, Amin, Turocy & Watson, LLP, Cleveland, OH.

Matthew J. Silveira, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by PATRICK THOMAS MI*626CHAEL; GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Washington, DC; David B. Cochran, Joseph M. Sauer, Cleveland, OH; Joshua R. Nightingale, Pittsburgh, PA.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie And Schall, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Raymond Buholtz, Respondent, against Henry J. Kearse et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Argued October 7, 1943;

decided November 18, 1943.

*695
      *Charles D. Mercer*and *John D. Sullivan*for appellants.

*Nathaniiel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum,*and *Orrin G. Judd*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoher, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      20,339,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,427,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,501
<INVENTORY>                                      1,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,074,336
<PP&E>                                       3,089,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                 679,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,636,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,385,456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,771
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,093,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,636,726
<SALES>                                     31,164,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,164,853
<CGS>                                       22,305,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,305,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,101,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,488,905
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,612,388
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,612,388
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6612

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GEORGE WASHINGTON CRANE, V , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’ Grady , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr
- 00297

- LO

- 1 )

Submitted : August 17, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
George Washington Crane, V , Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precede nt in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Washington Crane, V, appeals the district court’s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion . We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. See United States v. May , 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we deny Crane’s motion to expedite and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Crane , No. 1:13

- cr
- 00297

- LO

- 1 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2017)

. 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