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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6282 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6282

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 1, 2016

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 2024 Jerome Avenue, in Bronx, New York, as the ``Dr. Roscoe C. 
                   Brown, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DR. ROSCOE C. BROWN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2024 Jerome Avenue, in Bronx, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Dr. Roscoe C. Brown, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dr. Roscoe 
C. Brown, Jr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7083 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7083

To prohibit the Federal Government from removing or altering a barrier, 
fence, barbed wire, or obstacle constructed by a State along the United 
States border for the purpose of preventing unlawful crossings, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

   Mr. Collins (for himself, Mr. Self, Mr. Norman, Mr. Burchett, Mr. 
Cloud, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. Moore of Alabama, 
Mr. D'Esposito, Ms. Boebert, Ms. De La Cruz, Mr. Feenstra, Mrs. Miller 
  of Illinois, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Luttrell, Mr. Babin, and Mr. Mills) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Federal Government from removing or altering a barrier, 
fence, barbed wire, or obstacle constructed by a State along the United 
States border for the purpose of preventing unlawful crossings, 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 ``Restricting Administration Zealots 
from Obliging Raiders Act'' or the ``RAZOR Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    No department or agency of the Federal Government may remove or 
alter a barrier, fence, barbed wire, or obstacle constructed by a State 
along the United States border for the purpose of preventing unlawful 
crossings.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 10.3**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-188107 on Form F-3 of Gazit-Globe Ltd. and in the related Prospectus of ourreport dated March 15, 2012 relating to the 2011 consolidated financial statements (before retrospective adjustments discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements) of First Capital Realty Inc. (not presented herein), appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 20-F of Gazit-Globe Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2013. 

/s/ Deloitte LLP 

Chartered Professional Accountants, Chartered Accountants 

Licensed Public Accountants 

Toronto, Canada 

April 16, 2014
PROMISORY NOTE


It  is  hereby  agreed  on  this  the  8th  day of January 2001, That Stanley K.
Stilwell  (borrower) repay to Sports Tack, Inc. (lender) the principle amount of
$5,000  and  any  such  interest  as  accrues  until  fully  repaid.

It  is  further  agreed  that  the terms and conditions of this note shall be as
follows:

1.  The  borrower  will fully repay this note on or before the first anniversary
of  this  date.

2.  The  borrower  agrees to pay the lender interest at the rate of 12% per year
compounded annually until paid in full.  That if the full year is taken to repay
the  note  that  the amount due to the lender on January 8, 2002 will be $5,600.

3.  It  is mutually agreed that the borrower can at any time repay the principal
and  accrued  interest  without  penalty.

4.  It  is  also mutually agreed that should the borrower default on any part of
this  note  that  borrower  will  bear all costs of collection including but not
limited  to  court  costs  and  legal  expenses.

5.  It  is  further  agreed  that  this  note can become due and payable in full
within  a  five-day  notice  upon  the  lenders  request.



/s/  Gary  E.  Johnson
------------------------
President  and  Director
Sports  Tack,  Inc.

/s/  Stanley  K.  Stilwell
--------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angela WALKER, a/k/a Angie, a/k/a Angel, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6658

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Angela Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Angela Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debátable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is.debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not *783made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Walker’s motion for transcripts at government expense. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                                 BACOU USA, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 -----------------------------------------------
                      (in thousands,except per share data)
                                   (unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months Ended    Nine Months Ended
                                               September 30,         September 30,
                                            ------------------    -----------------
                                             1998       1997       1998       1997
                                            -------    -------    -------   -------
<S>                                         <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>    
 
Basic:
  Weighted average shares outstanding        17,604     17,318     17,599     17,314
                                            =======    =======    =======   ========

  Net income                                $ 6,675    $ 2,453    $13,906   $ 10,830
                                            =======    =======    =======   ========
  Per share amount                          $  0.38    $  0.14    $  0.79   $   0.62
                                            =======    =======    =======   ========

Diluted:

  Weighted average shares outstanding        17,604     17,318     17,599    17,314

  Net effect of dilutive stock options
   based on the treasury stock method
   using the average market price               184         35        123        15
                                            -------    -------    -------   -------
 Total diluted shares                        17,788     17,353     17,722    17,329
                                            =======    =======    =======   =======
  Net income                                $ 6,675    $ 2,453    $13,906   $10,830
                                            =======    =======    =======   =======
  Per share amount                          $  0.38    $  0.14    $  0.79   $  0.62
                                            =======    =======    =======   =======

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6278
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY ANTONIO WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-355; CA-02-3814-1) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Antonio Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Antonio Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 680

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of

documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 5, 1995

Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, and

6 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of

7 Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR,

9 United States official number 578550.

Æ
#### Kenneth J. HUCKFELDT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of WYOMING, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-8131

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED April 19, 2017

D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00131-NDF, D. Wyoming

Kenneth J. Huckfeldt, Pro se.

James Michael Causey, Joshua Charles Eames, Office of the Attorney General for the State- of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

Mr. Kenneth Huckfeldt was convicted in state court on charges of first-degree sexual assault and first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. After unsuccessfully appealing in state court, Mr. Huckfeldt sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied relief, and Mr. Huck-feldt wants to appeal, and to obtain an evidentiary hearing.

To appeal, Mr. Huckfeldt needs a cprtifi-cate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). For the certifícate, Mr. Huckfeldt must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). This showing exists only if reasonable jurists could characterize the district court’s rulings as debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Mr. Huckfeldt argues that the federal district court should not have rejected his claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, conflict of interest, abuse of discretion, judicial bias, and prosecutorial misconduct. The state appellate court rejected these claims on the merits. Thus, Mr. Huckfeldt had to show that the state appellate court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (2012).

The federal district court denied habeas relief, thoroughly explaining the absence of a conflict with, or unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. We agree with that explanation and do not believe that any reasonable jurist could regard the habeas claims as reasonably debatable. As a result, we decline to issue a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We also decline the request for an evi-dentiary hearing because the record shows the clear unavailability of habeas relief on any of the claims. *See Anderson v. Att’y Gen. of Kan.,*425 F.3d 853, 859 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the claim can be resolved on the record.”).
#### MARCO A. FRAUSTO, INC.; Marco A. Frausto, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-72638

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*854Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Marco A. Frausto, Inc., Pro Se

Marco A. Frausto, Pro Se

Joan I. Oppenheimer, John Schumann, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

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). Appellants’ request for oral argument, set forth in their reply brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Marco A. Frausto, Inc. and Marco A. Frausto and appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s notices of deficiency for tax years 2008 through 2011. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), We review de novo. *Correia v. Comm’r,*58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

We dismiss this appeal as to Marco A. Frausto, Inc. because it is a corporation that must appear in court through an attorney. *See Licht v. Am. W. Airlines,*40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); *C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,*818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (a non-attorney does not have authority to appear as an attorney for others).

Dismissal of Frausto’s petition was proper because Frausto did not set forth a clear and concise assignment of error, or any facts demonstrating error, in the Commissioner’s determinations of his individual tax liabilities. *See*T.C. R. 34(b)(4) (A petition must contain “[c]lear and concise assignments of each and every error ... committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency ... [and] .,. [a]ny issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded.”); *Grimes v. Comm’r,*806 F.2d 1451, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standing of review and affirming dismissal where a petitioner failed to present “any justiciable error in his petition for redeter-mination”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellants’ motion' for leave to correct an error by the Tax Court (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

September 14, 2009 Session

CHRIS YOUSIF, d/b/a QUALITY MOTORS v. NOTRIAL CLARK and

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KNOX COUNTY

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County

No. 1-565-07 Hon. Dale Workman, Judge

____________________________

No. E2008-02626-COA-R3-CV - FILED JANUARY 13, 2010

____________________________

John W. McClarty, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Based upon the factual history present in this case, I would affirm the

trial court’s dismissal of the writ.

___________________________________ 

JOHN W. McCLARTY, JUDGE
Exhibit
32.2





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





In
connection with the Annual Report of East Bridge Investment Group Corporation,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Norman Klein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, That to the best of my knowledge:





(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.





EASTBRIDGE
INVESTMENT GROUP CORPORATION


By /s/ Norman
Klein


Norman
Klein


Chief
Financial officer


March 14,
2008
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
	SOUTH SEAS PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNITS OUTSTANDING


	EXHIBIT 99.1

The weighted average number of partnership units used in the computation
 of earnings per unit is as follows:

                                                   Three Months
                                                  Ended March 31     
                                                 1997         1998 
<S>							             <C>           <C>
Actual number of units
 outstanding at the beginning of the
 year                                           4,426,568     4,515,818

Weighted average number of units issued
       during the year                                   -            -

Weighted average number of units 
 outstanding during the year                    4,426,568     4,515,818

</TABLE>



EXH99_1/ss
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Opticon Systems, Inc; (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Aiello, Principal Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





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





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





Dated: September 28, 2010











/s/ Paul J. Aiello


Paul J. Aiello,
 Principal Executive Officer
#### Vernon KING, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Bryan COLLIER; Steven N. Rich; Gene A. Kroll; Cordle A. Thomas, Jr.; Keith Gorsuch; Sharon D. Allen; Bridghett G. Eddie, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-40058

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 7, 2017

*458Vernon King, Jr., Pro Se

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Vernon King, Jr., Texas prisoner # 590316, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged an incident at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. King moves to proceed in forma pauperis to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We lack jurisdiction to address this appeal. *See Donaldson v. Ducote,*373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004); *see also Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc.,*883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and deny King’s motion as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charif Souki, Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





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





(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.








Date: March 1, 2011





/s/ CHARIF SOUKICharif SoukiChief Executive Officer of Sabine Pass LNG-GP, LLC,general partner of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.