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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6960 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 404
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6960

                          [Report No. 118-488]

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Emergency 
                 Medical Services for Children program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2024

Mr. Carter of Georgia (for himself, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Joyce of 
Pennsylvania, and Ms. Schrier) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                              May 7, 2024

 Additional sponsors: Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Thanedar, 
Ms. Ross, Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Davis of North Carolina, and Mr. Gottheimer

                              May 7, 2024

 Reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce; committed to the 
 Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to 
                               be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Emergency 
                 Medical Services for Children program.

 

    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 ``Emergency Medical Services for 
Children Reauthorization Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR 
              CHILDREN.

    Section 1910(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w-
9(d)) is amended by striking ``and $22,334,000 for each of fiscal years 
2020 through 2024'' and inserting ``$22,334,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2020 through 2024, and $24,334,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 
through 2029''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 404

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6960

                          [Report No. 118-488]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Emergency 
                 Medical Services for Children program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 7, 2024

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelly J. WINEGAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3242

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed April 14, 2017

(D.C. No. 2:09-CR-20149-JWL-l) (District of Kansas)

Carrie N. Capwell, Terra Morehead, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, Annette B. Gurney, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Melody Brannon, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Daniel T. Hansmeier, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This appeal was abated pending a decision by this court in *United States v. Collins,*No. 15-3084. Collins was decided on February 14, 2017, and a petition for panel rehearing was granted on April 7, 2017 on a limited basis to issue a revised opinion. This matter is before us on Appellant Kelly Winegar’s *Status Report*wherein he states that the one issue he intended to raise on appeal—whether the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a subsequent revocation is measured by the penalties applicable to the first revocation instead of the penalties applicable to the initial conviction—was rejected by *Collins,*and he is, therefore, constrained to admit that this court should summarily affirm the district court. Upon consideration of Appellant’s status report and in light of this court’s decision in *Collins,*the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment 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.
#### Babe WELCH, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 23420.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1966.

Wm. Brode Mobley, Jr., Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellant.

Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON and JONES, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The motion by appellant for reimbursement of court costs is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,482
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                       550
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,690
<PP&E>                                           6,364
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,836
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,794
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,994
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,379
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (305)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (752)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
<FN>
<F1>INTEREST INCOME
</FN>


</TABLE>
Order entered June 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01121
- CR
JOHN PAUL ROBINSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10
- 64197
- L



### O RDER In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs assessed in this case. Accordingly, we O RDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court appointed attorney fee.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of t his order, by electronic transmission, to Gary

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD., Creative Labs, Inc., Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee Google LLC, Motorola Mobility LLC, Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., Blackberry Ltd., Blackberry Corporation, HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., Intervenors

2016-2715

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 13, 2017

Jonathan Daniel Baker, Farney Daniels PC, San Mateo, CA, argued for appellants. Also represented by Michael D. Saunders, Gurtej Singh.

Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Wayne W. Herrington, Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Dominic L. Bianchi.

Dan L. Bagatell, Perkins Coie LLP, Hanover, NH, argued for all intervenors. Intervenors Google LLC, Motorola Mobility LLC, Lenovo (United States) Inc., Le-novo Group Ltd., Blackberry Ltd., Blackberry Corporation also represented by Veronica Susana Ascarrunz, Wilson, Sonsi-ni, Goodrich *&*Rosati, PC, Washington, DC. Intervenors Blackberry Ltd., Blackberry Corporation also represented by Daniel P. Muino, Morrison *&*Foerster LLP, Washington, DC; Vincent Joseph Be-lusko, Los Angeles, CA.

Fred Williams, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX, for intervenors HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. Also represented by Jonathan Lloyd Hardt.

Scott Andrew Elengold, Fish *&*Richardson, PC, Washington, DC, for interve-nors LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. Also represented by Christian A. Chu, Michael J. Mckeon.

Richard L. Rainey, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for intervenors Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung *1034Electronics America, Inc. Also represented by Alexander Chinoy¡ Gregory Scott Nib-berg, New York, NY; Alice Juwon Ahn, San Francisco, CA.

Michael N. Rader, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, for intervenors Sony Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. Also represented by Christopher Henry, Gerald B. Hrycyszyn; James Altman, Barbara A. Murphy, Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC, Washington, DC.

Lyle Brent Vander Schaaf, Brinks Gil-son & Lione, Washington, DC, for interve-nors ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc. Also represented by Jeffrey J. Catalano, Ralph Joseph Gabric, Chicago, IL.

(Newman, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
[Cite as Ballard v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 83, 2013-Ohio-2412.]

B ALLARD , A PPELLEE , v. T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT . [Cite as Ballard v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 83, 2013-Ohio-2412.] Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded on the authority of
Dunbar v. State. (No. 2012-1525—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided June 13, 2013.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 97882, 2012-Ohio-3086.

____________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded on the authority of Dunbar v. State , 136 Ohio St.3d 181, 2013-Ohio2163, 992 N.E.2d 1111.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

____________________ Samuel S. Riotte and David B. Malik, for appellee. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Solicitor General, and Peter K. Glenn-Applegat e, Deputy Solicitor; and Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael A. Dolan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

________________________
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Richard A. Petrocelli, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Investment Corp.;

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;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



5.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's
auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
May 23, 2011

/s/ Richard A. Petrocelli Name: Richard A. Petrocelli
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The   schedule  contains  summary  financial  information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance  sheets  and  consolidated  statements  of  income  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,299,606
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      841,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        459,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                          47,994,190
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,594,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,140,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,594,899
<SALES>                                             12,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,814,445
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,290,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   154,207
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 255,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    523,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                523,457
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       523,457
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.02  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.02   
        


</TABLE>
#### James C. PLATTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Warden of Hazelton SPC, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-6514

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

James C. Platts, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamep C. Platts, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing Platts’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, denying Platts’ motion to amend the petition as moot, and entering a prefiling injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). In his § 2241 petition, Platts challenged his convictions, term of imprisonment, and restitution order.

Initially, we note that Platts was released from custody during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot Platts’ challenge to his term of imprisonment. *See United States v. Springer,*715 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised *sua sponte*by a federal court at any stage of proceedings.”).

Next, the district court correctly determined that Platts failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging his convictions and restitution order. *See In re Jones,*226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). However, because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Platts’ § 2241 petition, *Rice v. Rivera,*617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), we modify the court’s order to reflect that the dismissal of Platts’ challenges to his convictions and restitution order is without prejudice and affirm as modified. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); *S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC,*713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for ... [a] defect in subject matter jurisdiction[ ] must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.”).

Finally, because Platts’ informal brief does not challenge the denial of the motion to amend or the entry of the prefiling injunction, Platts has forfeited appellate review of those decisions. See *Jackson v. Lightsey,*775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm those portions of the district court’s order.

We grant Platts leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART, AND DISMISSED IN PART*
#### Roberts *v.*Roberts.

No. 13270.

July 13, 1940.

*Joseph E. Webb*and P. *J.*Smith, for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph B.*MeOinty, contra.

Bell, Justice.

1. The evidence being in conflict on the material issues, it does not appear that the award of temporary alimony and attorney’s fees involved an abuse of the discretion of the judge. Code, § 30-205; *Pearson*v. *Pearson,*125 *Ga.*132 (54 S. E. 194); *George*v. *George,*130 *Ga.*608 (61 S. E. 401) ; *Brown*v. *Brown,*159 *Ga.*323 (125 S. E. 713); *Rigdon*v. *Rigdon,*174 *Ga.*903 (164 S. E. 677) ; *Burkhalter*v. *Burkhalter,*189 *Ga.*344 (6 S. E. 2d, 290).

2. Under the pleadings and the evidence the court did not err in continuing in force the writ of ne exeat and the bond given thereunder. See Code, § 37-1401; *Bleyer*v. *Blum,*70 *Ga.*558 (1 c); *Conyers*v. *Gray,*67 *Ga.*329 (2); *Carnes*v. *Carnes,*138 *Ga.*1 (5) (74 S. E. 785); *May*v. *May,*146 *Ga.*521 (91 S. E. 687). The case differs from *Lomax*v. *Lomax,*176 *Ga.*605 (168 S. E. 863), cited for the plaintiff in error.

3. The motion by the defendant in error to award damages, on the ground that the ease was brought to the Supreme Court for delay only, is denied. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,505
<SECURITIES>                                     8,770
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                       390
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,592
<PP&E>                                           8,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,177
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,442
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,682
<SALES>                                         10,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,031
<CGS>                                            2,331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    106
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 66
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        66
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>