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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1758 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1758

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide penalties for open 
               air drug markets, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide penalties for open 
               air drug markets, 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 ``Open Air Drug Market Penalty Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR OPEN AIR DRUG MARKETS.

    (a) In General.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                        ``open air drug markets

    ``Sec. 423. (a) Whoever commits a specified Federal drug offense, 
knowing that at least one other has committed a specified Federal drug 
offense--
            ``(1) within 500 feet of the place the offense under this 
        section takes place; and
            ``(2) within a 48-hour period;
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the specified Federal 
drug offense, be imprisoned 5 years.
    ``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall 
not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted 
for a violation of this section, nor shall the term of imprisonment 
imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of 
imprisonment, including that imposed for the specified Federal drug 
offense.
    ``(c) As used in this section, the term `specified Federal drug 
offense' means a Federal offense--
            ``(1) of which an element is the distribution or attempted 
        distribution of a controlled substance; and
            ``(2) for which the maximum term of imprisonment that may 
        be imposed equals or exceeds 5 years.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for title II of the 
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is amended 
by inserting after the item relating to section 422 the following new 
item:

``Sec. 423. Open air drug markets.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1497 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1497

 To require the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads of 
  other appropriate departments and agencies, to conduct an economic 
 impact study on the dual gateway policy of the Government of Ireland 
   before the United States takes any action that could lead to the 
                     discontinuation of the policy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2005

 Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads of 
  other appropriate departments and agencies, to conduct an economic 
 impact study on the dual gateway policy of the Government of Ireland 
   before the United States takes any action that could lead to the 
                     discontinuation of the policy.

    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 ``Dual Gateway Policy Review Act''.

SEC. 2. DUAL GATEWAY POLICY REVIEW REQUIRED.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall review the dual 
gateway policy and determine the effects the discontinuation of the 
policy might have on the United States economy and the Western Ireland 
economy before the United States takes any action that could lead to 
the discontinuation of the policy.
    (b) Economic Impact Study.--In determining the effects that the 
discontinuation of the dual gateway policy might have on the United 
States economy, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads 
of other appropriate departments and agencies, shall consider the 
effects the discontinuation of the policy might have on United States 
businesses operating in Western Ireland, Irish businesses operating in 
and around Shannon Airport, and United States air carriers serving 
Ireland.
    (c) Report.--The Secretary of State shall submit a report 
describing the determinations made under subsection (a), together with 
any recommendations for United States action, to Congress not later 
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Dual Gateway Policy.--The term ``dual gateway policy'' means 
the policy of the Irish Government which requires certain air carriers 
serving Dublin Airport to undertake equal numbers of flights to Shannon 
Airport and Dublin Airport during each calendar year.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-14

)

CONTREL J. JOHNSON )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on December 13, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 13th day of December, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13039]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board/Defense Policy Board Task Force on Theater 
Missile Defense (TMD); Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board/Defense Policy Board Task Force on 
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) will meet in closed session on June 12-
13, 1995 at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 
McLean, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will review the purposes of the U.S. theater missile defense 
effort, including the nature of the threat (types and quantities of 
missiles and payloads); how might it evolve; the degree of defense we 
seek; what we wish to defend; under what circumstances; and to what 
levels.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 23, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-13039 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
# Chart

&"Source Sans Pro SemiBold"&12&K000000NONPUBLIC//FDIC INTERNAL ONLY&1#	

# Data

&"Source Sans Pro SemiBold"&12&K000000NONPUBLIC//FDIC INTERNAL ONLY&1#	

# Sheet1

&"Source Sans Pro SemiBold"&12&K000000NONPUBLIC//FDIC INTERNAL ONLY&1#
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1725 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloral. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2005 

Mrs. CAPITO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloral. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLORAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.70 Trichloroacetaldhyde (CAS 

No. 75–87–6) (provided for 

in subheading 2913.00.50) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 1725 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-23-TLS 

)

JUAN SANDOVAL )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 41], filed on September 19, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 41] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 2 & 3 of the Indictment are hereby

accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offenses. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later than

seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling

deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on October 4, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EXHIBIT 13.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Olympus Pacific Minerals Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:
 
 (i) the accompanying Transition Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the transition period ended June 30, 2012 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
 
 Date:September 28, 2012
 /s/ S. Jane Bell
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and are not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of Strategic Storage Trust, Inc., or the Company, in connection with the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |     |  |                                                          
|-------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|March 30, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ H. Michael Schwartz                                  
|Date           |  |  |  |     |  | H. Michael Schwartz                                      
|               |  |  |  |     |  | President, CEO and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   juN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         7,978,163
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,550,864
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,297,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,429,343
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    194
<COMMON>                                       962,058
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,759,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,297,060
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,265,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             62,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,137,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,137,655)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,137,655)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.11)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1692 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1692

To repeal the application of the sunset in the Economic Growth and Tax 
    Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to tuition programs which are 
   qualified under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2005

  Ms. Hooley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the application of the sunset in the Economic Growth and Tax 
    Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to tuition programs which are 
   qualified under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    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 ``Savings for Personal Education 
Continuation Tax Relief Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICATION OF SUNSET IN THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX 
              RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 TO 529 PLANS.

    Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
Act of 2001 shall not apply to section 402 of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

AHMAD SIMMION LINTON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District 

Judge. (1:98-cr-00258-BEL-2; 1:04-cv-02382-BEL) 

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 24, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished by per curiam opinion. 

Ahmad Simmion Linton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Ahmad Simmion Linton seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2009). We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case 

are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2006). See

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, , 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 

(2007). When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). A 

failure to file a notice of appeal in accordance with § 2107 

deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. Bowles, 127 S. 

Ct. at 2366. 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 29, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on 

February 24, 2009.* Because Linton failed to file a timely 

 

(Continued) 

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

2 
3 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the 

appeal period, we 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

 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988).
#### Mark MCGUIRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathy MENDOZA-POWERS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-16365.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

Mark McGuire, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Mark McGuire appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

McGuire contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because McGuire raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing,1 a *767COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Further, because McGuire has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. *Id.*

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. To the extent that McGuire has preserved for appellate review the claim that he was *767interrupted and precluded from finishing his "final statement” to the Board, the record reflects that he was given an opportunity to be heard. *See Cooke,*131 S.Ct. at 862.