alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          56,343
<SECURITIES>                                    19,729
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          12,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,836
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,339
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   512
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,788
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (856)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (980)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,723)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,723)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,723)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7058 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7058

To establish a Border Security Reserve Fund to be used by border States 
and the U.S. Border Patrol to invest in border security, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2024

Mr. Williams of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a Border Security Reserve Fund to be used by border States 
and the U.S. Border Patrol to invest in border security, 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 ``Border Security Reserve Fund Act''.

SEC. 2. BORDER SECURITY RESERVE FUND.

    (a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of the United 
States a fund to be known as the ``Border Security Reserve Fund'' (in 
this section referred to as the ``fund'') to be used by border States 
and the U.S. Border Patrol to invest in border security.
    (b) Deposits.--There shall be deposited into the fund amounts 
associated with unlawful narcotics confiscated by U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection.
    (c) Cooperation.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection shall work with appropriate officials of the Treasury of the 
United States and the United States Secret Service to ensure amounts 
deposited pursuant to subsection (b) are not counterfeit.
    (d) Prohibition.--Amounts deposited pursuant to subsection (b) may 
not be used by sanctuary cities or for the overflow housing of 
migrants.
                                 <all>
```
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4490



# 
S TEWARTL. C LOER ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-99-1-1) Submitted: June 15, 2001 Decided: July 10, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Stewart L. Cloer, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Stewart L. Cloer appeals from his guilty plea conviction to three counts of falsely making and subscribing a tax return under penaltyof perjury. We deny Cloer’s claims on appeal for the reasons that follow. First, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma , 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Second, we do not address Cloer’s claims that the district court committed sentencing errors as he waived his right to appeal these issues in a valid plea agreement, which was reviewed by the district court in a proper Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. United States v. Broughton-Jones , 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Wessells , 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). Next, we do not find that the district court committed clear error by denying his numerous claims of prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Ellis , 121 F.3d 908, 927 (4th Cir. 1997). Finally, we decline to review Cloer’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal because the record does not "conclusively" demonstrate that he received such defective counsel. United States v. Richardson , 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1096 (2000). We deny Cloer’s pending motions for release (bail) and to "Vacate Order of the Clerk and for Immediate Release." We also deny hismotion for oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. C LOER
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6955 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the positions of 

the Chief and Assistant Chief of the Uniformed Division of the United 

States Secret Service are within the Senior Executive Service, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2024 

Mr. RUTHERFORD (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the 

positions of the Chief and Assistant Chief of the Uniformed Division of the United States Secret Service are 

within the Senior Executive Service, 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 ‘‘Investing in Uniformed 

5 Division Leadership Act’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6955 IH

1 SEC. 2. CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITIONS OF UNI2 FORMED DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES 

3 SECRET SERVICE WITHIN SENIOR EXECUTIVE 

4 SERVICE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 10203 of title 5, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), in the table relating to the 

8 schedule of rates of basic pay, by striking the items 

9 relating to Assistant Chief and Chief; 

10 (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ‘‘(except 

11 the Deputy Chiefs, Assistant Chief and Chief)’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘(except the Deputy Chiefs)’’; and 

13 (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(c) CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITIONS

16 WITHIN SES.—The positions of Chief and Assistant Chief 

17 in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division 

18 shall be career reserved positions (as that term is defined 

19 in section 3132(a)) within the Senior Executive Service.’’. 

20 (b) CONVERSION.—Any individual occupying the po21 sition of Chief or Assistant Chief in the Uniformed Divi22 sion of the United States Secret Service on date of enact23 ment of this section shall be converted to the Senior Exec24 utive Service as soon as practicable after such date. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**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 Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James A. Courter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Date: June 6, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDTCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Fernando ALAMEDA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Fernando A. Rodriguez, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 15-60703 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 31, 2017

*360Malvern Clopton Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C.-Burnett, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner

Laura M. L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fernando Alameda-Rodriguez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision denying his application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) for cancellation of removal on discretionary hardship grounds. Alameda-Rodriguez argues that the immigration judge, and in turn the BIA, erred in failing to consider the hardship that both of his children would suffer if he were removed from the United States. He contends that the hardship of his son was not considered at all. However, he did not raise this claim before the BIA, Accordingly, Alameda-Rodriguez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the claim is not considered. *See Wang v. Ashcroft,*260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Because we lack jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims, *see Townsend v. INS,*799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1986), the petition is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

*

 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC H. MOODY, AKA Abdul Wahid,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JIMMY CRUZEN, individually and in his

official capacities as Correctional Officer; et

al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16058

D.C. No. 5:15

- cv

- 02017

- LHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Eric H. Moody , AKA Abdul Wahid, appeals pro se

from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to cong regational prayer. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16058

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo

,

775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Moody failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his

administrative remedies, or whether there was “something in his particular case

that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively

unavailable to him.” Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en

banc); see also Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (requiring proper

exhaustion, which means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so

properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the me rits)” (emphasis,

citation, and internal quotation marks omitted) ). Moody contends that he

exhausted under a “continuing violation” theory, but even if this court were to

adopt such a theory, it would not apply in this case.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector FLORES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11103 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

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

Hector Flores, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4490

STEWART L. CLOER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-99-1-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2001

Decided: July 10, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Stewart L. Cloer, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Stewart L. Cloer appeals from his guilty plea conviction to three

counts of falsely making and subscribing a tax return under penalty

of perjury. We deny Cloer’s claims on appeal for the reasons that follow. 

First, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in

denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Second, we do not address

Cloer’s claims that the district court committed sentencing errors as

he waived his right to appeal these issues in a valid plea agreement,

which was reviewed by the district court in a proper Fed. R. Crim. P.

11 hearing. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146

(4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th

Cir. 1991). Next, we do not find that the district court committed clear

error by denying his numerous claims of prosecutorial misconduct.

United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 927 (4th Cir. 1997). Finally, we

decline to review Cloer’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial

counsel on direct appeal because the record does not "conclusively"

demonstrate that he received such defective counsel. United States v.

Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.

1096 (2000). 

We deny Cloer’s pending motions for release (bail) and to "Vacate

Order of the Clerk and for Immediate Release." We also deny his

motion for oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. CLOER
#### Jolan GURDON, AKA Jessie Henson, AKA David Raymond, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70364

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 31, 2017

Margarita Silva, Esquire, Attorney, Silva & Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Nor-wood, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

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 **

Jolan Gurdon, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Gurdon failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if removed to Jamaica. *See Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that the petitioner’s claims of possible torture were speculative and therefore did not compel reversal). Gurdon’s contention that the agency insufficiently considered his CAT claim is not supported by the record. *See Cole v. Holder,*659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA is not required to “discuss each piece of evidence submitted”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Litchfield v. The Iowa Homestead Company *et al.*

Former Adjudication : recovery of taxes paid under mistake. *{Goodnowv. Burrows, ante,*pp. 251 and256, followed.)

*Appeal from Webster District Court.*

Filed, March 12, 1888.

*C. H. Gatch,*for appellants.

*George Crane,*for appellee.

Beck, J.

The facts of this case bring it within the rules and doctrines of *Goodnow v. Burrows*as announced in the original opinion, and the opinion upon rehearing filed at the present term of this court. See *ante,*pp. 251 and 256. Following the decision in that case the judgment in this is Reversed.
### Jaffe, Darren (OST) From: 

### Sent: To:



### Cc: 

### Subject: Attachments:
All, Donovan, Abigail <Abigaii.Donovan@aa.com> Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:35 PM englets@state.gov; cristinasa@state.gov; Flaningan, Paul; Hedberg, Brian (OST); Homan, Todd (OST); Irvine, Peter.(DST); Remo, Laura (OST); Kruger, Brett (OST); john.allen@faa.gov; dan.weiss@united.com; 'steve.morrissey@united.com' (steve.morrissey@united.com); gmurphy@crowell.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com; chris.walker@delta.com; Jaffe, Darren (OST) Kass, Howard; Wirick, Robert SERVICE Exemption Renewal (US-Brazil TAM Codesharing) AAApplication for Renewal of Exemption Authority (US-Brazil TAM Codesharing).pdf ·

AmericanAirlinesjustfiled the attached Applicationforan Exemption Renewal (US-Brazil) in Docket DOT-OST-2012- 0209. AA has already polled ontheApplication and received no objections. Thanks, Abby Abby Donovan American Airlines 202.326.5164

1 _;.

'···· i
y)uJ> 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Drake Aerial Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Air America 

Aerial Ads and James Miller 

Complainant, 

City of Cleveland 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-02 

JAN 1 5 2010 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

Pursuant to 14 CFR Section 16.11(a), the Director does hereby extend the date that the 

Director's initial determination will be rendered, in the above referenced case, to on or 

before February 5,2010. 

An extension of time is essential for a fair and complete hearing of the matter before the 

agency. 

<o 

•/^7 ^ 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 

Date 

l/'r// p 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 15,2010,1 caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy of the foregoing document addressed 

to: 

Rebecca E. Dupuis 

Nathan A. Hall 

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 

North Courthouse Square 

1000 Jackson Street 

Toledo, OH 43604 

Counsel for Complainant 

Edward W. Sauer 

Charles F. Donley, II 

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Robert J. Triozzi 

City of Cleveland Department of Law 

601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

Counsel for Respondent 

Hand Delivered to: 

Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

)e^dra Brook; 

Airport Complii
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report On Form 10-K of Datone, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ending December 31, 2008, I, Craig Burton, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.           Such
annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:  April
      3, 2009
            DATONE,
      INC.By:
            /s/ Craig BurtonCraig
      Burton