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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 802 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 316
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 802

                          [Report No. 104-214]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
  documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL 
                                AFFAIRE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 1995

 Mr. Hollings introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                            January 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
  documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL 
                                AFFAIRE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, 
and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with a 
coastwise endorsement for the vessel ROYAL AFFAIRE, United States 
official number 649292.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 316

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 802

                          [Report No. 104-214]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
  documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL 
                                AFFAIRE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
##### 



GMAC LLC
  
 Annual Statement as to Compliance
    a.
    
    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of September 21, 2006 through
December 31, 2006, and of its performance under the Basic Documents has been made under my
supervision; and
 b.
    
    To my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled in all material respects
all of its obligations under the Basic Documents throughout such period.
 Very truly yours,/s/ M.E. NewmanM.E. NewmanVice President and Chief Financial Officer,
GMAC North American Operations Cc:
    
    M. L. Daugherty
L. Dishman
#### Rexford J. ROTHERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15775

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 16, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed March 23, 2017

Mark Ross Caldwell, Mark Caldwell, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Kirsten A. Westerland, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Region VIII, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,** Chief District Judge.

*

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

**

 ■pjjg Honorable Louis Guirola, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s finding that Rex-ford Rothery’s testimony was not credible. Rothery admitted that he was working as a swimming pool cleaner during the period in which he claimed to be disabled; that he failed to report his income to tax authorities; and that he repeatedly drove using a suspended driver’s license. The ALJ properly considered these facts as evidence undermining Rothery’s general reputation for truthfulness. *See Burch v. Barnhart,*400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, inconsistencies between Rothery’s statements and other evidence in the record suggested that Rothery was exaggerating his symptoms. For example, the U.S. Office of the Inspector General’s Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit found that Rothery shopped more frequently than he reported in his disability application and that his observed demeanor was inconsistent with someone suffering from Rothery’s claimed symptoms. Finally, Dr. Worsley, an examining psychiatrist, opined that Rothery’s symptoms were not as severe as he alleged. The ALJ properly considered all of this evidence in making an adverse credibility determination. *See*20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to the medical opinion of Dr. Gilbert, Roth-ery’s treating psychiatrist. As indicated above, the ALJ properly determined that Rothery’s self-reported symptoms were not credible; by extension, his decision to give little weight to Dr. Gilbert’s opinion because it relied on Rothery’s self-reported symptoms was not improper. *See Tommasetti v. Astrue,*533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition, as noted by the ALJ, Rothery’s continued employment during the claimed disability period indicates that he had sufficient functioning for employment during that time frame. These were sufficiently specific and legitimate *665reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Gilbert’s opinion. *See Garrison v. Colvin,*759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Qualon Rashard WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11617 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Qualon Rashard Williams, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Qualon Rashard Williams 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). Williams has not filed a response. Although Williams remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. 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 nonfrivo-lous 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 in part as frivolous, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, *see United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

*

 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.
#### Elenor Janet ELGUERA-STINNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stacey A. KINCAID, Fairfax County Sheriff, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7718

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

*289Elenor Janet Elguera-Stinnett, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elenor Janet Elguera-Stinnett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 debatable 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 petition 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 Elguera-Stinnett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility, deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, and dismiss the appeal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          39,095
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          29,356
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                73,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                60,610
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     49,150
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,784,910
<ALLOWANCE>                                     20,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,155,025
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,741,377
<SHORT-TERM>                                   165,745
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             48,806
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,750
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        19,449
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,155,025
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 67,117
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,776
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                71,893
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              31,467
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,972
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           34,921
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,525
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 742
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 53,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,625
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,625
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,408
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.72
<LOANS-NON>                                     27,704
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,928
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                20,776
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,269
<RECOVERIES>                                       305
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               20,296
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            20,296
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         20,296
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

West Point Contractors, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 63039, 63040

)

Under Contract No. W9126G

- 18

- D

- 0025

T.O. W9126G

- 18

- F

- 2500 )

)

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Casey J. McKinnon, Esq.

Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenbelt & Furman PC

Washington

, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Maureen E. Rudolph, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney

U.S. Army Engineer District, Albuquerque

Shane T. Lauritzen, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney

U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute s ha ve been settled. The se appeal s are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 1 9 , 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63039, 63040

, Appeals of West

Point Contractors, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: October 19, 2022 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services2 Board of Contract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6889 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6889

 To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require 
that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 
  estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit and of the public 
                                 debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2023

  Ms. Maloy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require 
that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 
  estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit and of the public 
                                 debt.

    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 ``True Cost Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE COST PER 
              TAXPAYER OF THE DEFICIT.

    Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(40)(A) in the case of a fiscal year in which the budget 
        is projected to result in a deficit, an estimate of the pro 
        rata cost of such deficit for taxpayers who will file 
        individual income tax returns for taxable years ending during 
        such fiscal year; and
            ``(B) in the case of any fiscal year, an estimate of the 
        pro rata cost of the public debt for taxpayers who will file 
        individual income tax returns for taxable years ending during 
        such fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Johnny Ray CHAPMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. ALLEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6016

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Johnny Ray Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ’

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*292PER CURIAM:

Johnny Ray Chapman seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order * dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 debatable 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 petition 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 Chapman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to - 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I
Ronald E. Badke, 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, to the best of 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, 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 Company.


                                             By /s/ Ronald E. Badke
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Ronald E. Badke
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             November 9, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I Ronald E.
Badke, 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, to the best of 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, 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 Company.





By /s/ Ronald E. Badke
   ------------------
   Ronald E. Badke
   Chief Financial Officer
   May 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1998
THIRD QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,890
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,656
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    447,735
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        328,374
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 818,893
<DEPOSITS>                                     449,330
<SHORT-TERM>                                   118,195
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,225
<LONG-TERM>                                    108,760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 818,893
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,213
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               22,559
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                41,772
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,996
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,743
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,029
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      270
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              17,759
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,486
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,486
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,275
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .92
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.17
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,914
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,322
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      101
<RECOVERIES>                                        38
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,529
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,529
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>