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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 70 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 70

 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
              corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 1975.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 1996

Mr. Murkowski submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
              corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 1975.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1975) entitled ``An Act to 
improve the management of royalties from Federal and Outer Continental 
Shelf oil and gas leases, and for other purposes'', the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
            (1) On page 5, line 23, strike the word ``provision'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``provisons''.
            (2) On page 29, line 23, insert the word ``so'' before the 
        word ``demonstrate''.
            (3) On page 36, line 2, insert the word ``not'' after the 
        word ``shall''.
            (4) On page 36, line 19, strike the word ``rate'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``date''.
            (5) On page 36, line 24, strike the word ``owned'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``owed''.
            (6) On page 39, line 8, strike the word ``dues'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof the word ``due''.
            (7) On page 44, line 24, strike the word ``it'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof the word ``its''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0001005335
<NAME>                         Smith Barney Principal Plus Futures Fund L.P. II
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                    8,960,372
<SECURITIES>                             13,505,513
<RECEIVABLES>                               107,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         22,573,455
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           22,573,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       582,564
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                               21,990,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             22,573,455
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            483,988
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            422,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              61,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 61,552
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (2.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
#### Linwood GRAY, Appellant v. Harry L. STALEY, et al., Appellees

No. 17-7007 Consolidated with 17-7098

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: November 15, 2017

Linwood Gray, Pro Se

Brent M. Ahalt, McNamee, Hosea, Jer-ingan, Kim, Greenan *&*Lynch, P.A., Greenbelt, MD, for Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: Henderson, Kavanaugh, and Millett, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed December 15, 2016, and April 4, 2017 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds. See Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The court correctly concluded that the claims accrued in 1985, when appellant’s former residence was the subject of a foreclosure sale. At that time, appellant was on inquiry notice of his claims, as he knew or reasonably could have known of “(1) the existence of the injury, (2) its cause in fact, and (3) some evidence of wrongdoing.” See Goldman v. Bequai, 19 F.3d 666, 671-72 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Contrary to appellant’s assertions, his causes of action did not accrue in 1994, when appellees allegedly used misappropriated funds to purchase restaurant franchises. See Cevenini v. Archbishop of Washington, 707 A.2d 768, 772 (D.C. 1998) (“[W]e have never held that accrual should be tolled until the plaintiff fully appreciates the ‘impact’ of the harm directed at him.”).

The statute of limitations, which appellant does not dispute is three years, was tolled during appellant’s first period of incarceration from 1979 until no later than December 1992, when appellant was released from prison. See D.C. Code §§ 12-301(8); 12-302(a)(3). However, the limitations period was not tolled again when appellant was arrested and re-incarcerated in June 1994. See District of Columbia v. Tinker, 691 A.2d 57, 64 (D.C. 1997). Therefore, appellant’s claims are time-barred, because the three-year statute of limitations began to run no later than December 1992, and thus expired no later than December 1995, but appellant did not file his complaint until May 2011.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), as the public records upon which appellant relies could have been discovered previously through the exercise of dili*3gence, and would not affect the court’s conclusion that appellant was on inquiry notice of his claim in 1985.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is . directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
# L_2004236DE.01001803.xml

| 7.7.2004 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 236/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2004

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 236/18

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2003/110/EG des Rates vom 25. November 2003 über die Unterstützung bei der Durchbeförderung im Rahmen von Rückführungsmaßnahmen auf dem Luftweg

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 321 vom 6. Dezember 2003
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 321 vom 6. Dezember 2003

Seite 27, Artikel 2 Buchstabe e):

anstatt:

| „e) | „Durchbeförderung auf dem Luftweg“Drittstaatsangehörigen und gegebenenfalls der Begleitkräfte im Bereich des Flughafens des ersuchten Mitgliedstaats.“ |
| --- | --- |

„e)

„Durchbeförderung auf dem Luftweg“Drittstaatsangehörigen und gegebenenfalls der Begleitkräfte im Bereich des Flughafens des ersuchten Mitgliedstaats.“

muss es heißen:

| „e) | „Durchbeförderung auf dem Luftweg“ die zur Rückführung auf dem Luftweg erfolgende Durchbeförderung des Drittstaatsangehörigen und gegebenenfalls der Begleitkräfte im Bereich des Flughafens des ersuchten Mitgliedstaats.“ |
| --- | --- |

„e)

„Durchbeförderung auf dem Luftweg“ die zur Rückführung auf dem Luftweg erfolgende Durchbeförderung des Drittstaatsangehörigen und gegebenenfalls der Begleitkräfte im Bereich des Flughafens des ersuchten Mitgliedstaats.“

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6216

JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-6222

JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEONARD LOWE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge; W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-44-CT-BR, CA-96-46-5-

F)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996
2

Before ERVIN and Motz, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing

these 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) actions as frivolous. Appellant

claimed that his convictions violated due process and equal protection principles and that he was denied a speedy trial by an

impartial tribunal. He sought damages. Appellant's claims are not

cognizable under § 1983 because he has not shown that the challenged convictions have been reversed, expunged, or declared

invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 62 USLW 4594 (U.S.

June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188).

We accordingly affirm the district court's decisions. 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.
3

AFFIRMED
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER 

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

The undersigned, Daniel McKinney, the President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc. hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc., for the yearended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1)fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc. 

Date: April 15, 2009 

/s/ Daniel McKinney      Daniel McKinney President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appear in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SinoFibre Communications, Inc. and will be retained by Sino Fibre Communications,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest. 

 

 

----
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0689 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0689

**2003/689/EC: Commission Decision of 2 October 2003 on the list of establishments in Estonia approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 3429) **

*
Official Journal L 251 , 03/10/2003 P. 0021 - 0022 *

Commission Decision

of 2 October 2003

on the list of establishments in Estonia approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community

(notified under document number C(2003) 3429)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/689/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003(2), and in particular Articles 4(1) and 18(1)(a) and (b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Establishments in third countries may only be authorised to export fresh meat to the Community if they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC.

(2) Following a Community mission, it appears that the animal health situation in Estonia compares favourably with that in the Member States, particularly as regards disease transmission through meat, and that the operation of controls over the production of fresh meat is satisfactory.

(3) For the purpose of Article 4(3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, Estonia has forwarded details of the establishment that should be authorised to export fresh meat to the Community.

(4) The establishment put forward by Estonia meets all the requirements laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC in order to be designated as a slaughterhouse and approved cutting plant from which imports into the EU may be permitted in accordance with Article 18 of the Directive.

(5) A Community inspection has shown that the hygiene standards of that establishment are satisfactory and that it may therefore be included on the first list of establishments, to be drawn up in accordance with Directive 72/462/EEC, from which imports of fresh meat may be authorised.

(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The establishment in Estonia as listed in the Annex is hereby approved for the purposes of exporting fresh meat to the Community pursuant to the conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC, including points (a) and (b) of Article 18(1) thereof.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 6 October 2003.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 October 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36.

ANNEX

>PIC FILE= "L_2003251EN.002202.TIF">
Exhibit 35**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**     1, K. E. Middlebrooks, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofDaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas LLC, the Servicer of Daimler-Chrysler Auto Trust2006-D, certify that:(a) A review of the Servicer’s activities during the reporting period and of itsperformance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under mysupervision. (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the agreement in all material respects throughoutthe reporting period.Date: March 23, 2007       /s/ K. E. Mlddlebrooks K. E. Middlebrooks    Vice President and Chief Financial     Officer, DaimlerChrysler Financial     Services Americas LLC, as Servicerof
#### Susan LEDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-56620

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 17, 2017

*648Rachel Viola Slocombe, Southern California Disability Attorneys, Playa Del Rey, CA, for Plaintif-Appellant.

Dorothy Schouten, Assistant U.S., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Jennifer Lee Tarn, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: HAWKINS, PARKER,*** and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

***

 The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ****

Susan Leddy appeals from'the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability benefits and supplemental security income due to a combination of physical and mental impairments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo and the determination of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) for substantial evidence, *Dale v. Colvin,*823 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.

Leddy contends that the ALJ erred by determining that her mental impairments were not severe and did not cause any significant functional limitations. The existence of a mental impairment alone does not establish functional limitation or disability. *See Matthews v. Shalala,*10 F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993). Substantial medical evidence—including treatment records indicating that Leddy’s mental impairments were well-controlled and caused mild, if any, functional limitations as well as the opinions of examining and consulting psychiatrists—supports the ALJ’s determination that Leddy’s mental impairments did not cause significant functional limitations. *See Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2012).

Leddy contends that the ALJ erred by giving inadequate weight to certain medical evidence, a lay witness statement, and her testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms. She also argues that the ALJ erred by not applying Rule 201.14 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines. Leddy waived these arguments by failing to sufficiently raise them below, and we do not consider them. See *Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, Leddy has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances justify supplementing the record on appeal with medical records relating to physical impairments post-dating the ALJ’s decision by several years. *See Lowry v. Barnhart,*329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, Leddy’s Motion to Supplement the Record (Docket Entry No. 29) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

****

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Roger Kahn, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, 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 his knowledge:



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



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





|Date:       January 24, 2017 |        | /s/ Roger Kahn                                                     
|---------------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                             | Name:  | Roger Kahn                                                         
|                             | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 23.1
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141401) pertaining to the 1999 Share Option and
Incentive Plan, 2001 Share Option and Incentive Plan, 2003 Share Option and Incentive Plan,
2004 Share Option and Incentive Sub-Plan for Israeli Employees, 2007 Equity Incentive Plan,
and Employee Stock Purchase Plan of BigBand Networks, Inc.,
 (2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-153100) pertaining to the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan
and Employee Stock Purchase Plan of BigBand Networks, Inc.; and
 (3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-161342) pertaining to the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan
and Employee Stock Purchase Plan of BigBand Networks, Inc.;
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Genaro Gilbert Velasco GARCIA, a.k.a. Genaro Garcia, a.k.a. Genaro Velasco, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50108

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 3, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kimberly Denise Jaimez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Genaro Gilbert Velasco Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

. Garcia contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He argues that the court failed to evaluate his culpability relative to others in the drug distribution scheme and that he is entitled to the adjustment under the five factors enumerated in the commentary to the Guideline. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record reflects that the district court properly considered Garcia’s role in the trafficking scheme, and the factors enumerated in the Guideline and the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether Garcia was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); *United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of the offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Garcia was not a minor or minimal participant.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0343 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. LILA LYNN LORD,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 28 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 23 2024

09/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0343