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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 228 

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

1968 to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 

Grant Program through fiscal year 2018. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2015 

Mr. LOBIONDO (for himself and Mr. VISCLOSKY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the 

Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2018. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bulletproof Vest Part5 nership Grant Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 228 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS FOR BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNER3 SHIP GRANT PROGRAM. 

4 Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

5 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

6 3793(a)(23)) is amended by striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘2018’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      67,402,715
<SECURITIES>                                51,684,270
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           124,315,269
<PP&E>                                      19,845,209
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,998,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             163,264,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,008,380
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       204,475
<OTHER-SE>                                 151,639,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               163,264,067
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,744,639
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,433,327
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             380,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,033,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,033,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,033,353
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51903-51904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20185]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Multi-site Clinical Trial Implementation.
    Date: November 2, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DrPH, Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on 
Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building 2C212, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-7704, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e88581838089818481a885898184c6868180c68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1ccc8cac9c0c8cdc8e1ccc0c8cd8fcfc8c98fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel Triadic Care.

[[Page 51904]]

    Date: November 29-30, 2021.
    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dario Dieguez, Jr, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827.3101, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99fdf8ebf0f6b7fdf0fcfeecfce3d9f7f0f1b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a7e7b687375347e737f7d6f7f605a747372347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 14, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20185 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Arthur MARCELO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathy MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-56204.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Arthur Marcelo, Avenal, CA, pro se.

Heather L. Bushman, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*800Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Arthur Marcelo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the denial of parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, *Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms,*461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

Despite Marcelo’s contention to the contrary, there is some evidence in the record supporting the parole board’s denial of parole. *See Sass,*461 F.3d at 1128-29 (holding that there is no due process violation if there is some evidence in the record that could support disciplinary board’s conclusion). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Sass,*461 F.3d at 1129.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### MEYER, Respondent, v. LEE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 16, 1896.)

Action by Joseph Meyer against George A. Lee and Margaret J. Thompson.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2258 

To amend section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, to modify the 

authority of the President of the United States to declare national 

monuments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2015 

Mr. BUCK (for himself, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. COOK, Mrs. LUMMIS, and Mr. PEARCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, 

to modify the authority of the President of the United 

States to declare national monuments, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO AUTHORITY TO DECLARE NA4 TIONAL MONUMENTS. 

5 Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2258 IH

1 ‘‘(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—A proclamation or reserva2 tion under subsection (a) or (b) shall expire 3 years after 

3 proclaimed or reserved unless specifically approved by— 

4 ‘‘(1) a Federal law enacted after the date of the 

5 proclamation or reservation; and 

6 ‘‘(2) a State law, for each State where the land 

7 covered by the proclamation or reservation is lo8 cated, enacted after the date of the proclamation or 

9 reservation.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### VAN CAMP, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF EAST SYRACUSE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Artimissa Van Camp against the village of East Syracuse.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-2000       SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                 1
<CASH>                             26,051            29,064
<SECURITIES>                       43,718            44,832
<RECEIVABLES>                     101,959           114,574
<ALLOWANCES>                       (4,841)           (3,200)
<INVENTORY>                             0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  203,835           201,354
<PP&E>                            100,554           101,713
<DEPRECIATION>                     32,012            47,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    285,253           275,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              68,286            62,123
<BONDS>                                 0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                 0
<PREFERRED>                             0                 0
<COMMON>                              282               358
<OTHER-SE>                        207,645           204,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      285,253           275,614
<SALES>                           243,896           253,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  243,896           253,123
<CGS>                             176,502           161,540
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     127,365           106,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (2,928)             (154)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    1,736             1,258
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      5               862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (57,043)          (15,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                      (19,744)           (5,394)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (37,299)           (9,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                 0
<CHANGES>                               0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      (37,299)           (9,650)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (1.33)            (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (1.33)            (0.34)



</TABLE>
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 22

- BG

- 698

IN RE SCOTT J. CAPRIGLIONE

, DDN : 2021

- D 129

A n Inactive Administratively Suspended

Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 394850

BEFORE: McLeese and Howard , Associate Judges, and Ferren , Senior Judge.

O R D E R ( FILED

— November 23, 2022)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of New Jersey suspending respondent fro m the practice of law for one year and until further order

of the court ; this court’s September 2 1 , 2022 , order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline in the form of a one year suspension with a fitness requirement should not

be imposed ; and the state ment of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit with this

court

, it is

ORDERED that Scott J. Capriglione is hereby suspended from the practice of

law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year with reinstatement contingent on a showing of fitness

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483, 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) ( explaining that a rebuttable presumption of iden tical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate) ; see also In re Tan , 119 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2015) (imposing the functional ly equivalent reciprocal discipline of a one year suspension with a fitness requirement

wher e the respondent had been suspended for one year and until further order of the court)

. It isNo. 22

- BG

- 698

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
|   | 1. | The      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |    /s/  Daniel      R. Baty |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Daniel      R. Baty                                  |
|   | Co-Chief      Executive Officer                      |
|   | May      11, 2009                                    |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31338 Summary Calendar

ELAINE BARTHOLOMEW, as next friend Dagny Mahaffey, as next friend Shirlaine Mitchell, minors, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-50-J

-------------------- August 6, 2001 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Elaine Bartholomew appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of her claim for surviving child benefits. She argues that substantial evidence did not support the Commissioner’s decision, the administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to develop the record, the ALJ did not properly weigh theNo. 00-31338 -2- evidence, and the ALJ improperly placed a high burden of proof on the claimants. Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards are applied. Harris v. Apfel , 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000); Stone v. Heckler , 715 F.2d 179, 180-81, 184 (5th Cir. 1983). “The [Commissioner], not the courts, has the duty to weigh the evidence, resolve material conflicts in the evidence, and decide the case.” Chaparro v. Bowen , 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1987). Given the evidence that the Arizona resident had used the name and social security number of Curtis Clifford Mahaffey since at least 1985 and Judy Griffen’s corroborating identification of her brother, which dates back to Mahaffey’s childhood, there were credible evidentiary choices supporting the ALJ’s decision. Harris , 209 F.3d at 417. Although the Commissioner could have investigated the matter further, there was credible substantial evidence upon which the Commissioner could conclude that the Arizona resident was the true owner of the disputed social security number, and Bartholomew has failed to demonstrate that the additional evidence might have altered the result. Carey v. Apfel , 230 F.3d 131, 142 (5th Cir. 2000). “In short, there is conflicting evidence on the issue . . ., and the [ALJ’s] determination must be respected because it is supported by substantial credible evidence.” See Ryan v. Bowen , 799 F.2d 147,No. 00-31338 -3- 148 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
----

EXHIBIT 32 

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 Silver Dragon Resources Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Marc Hazout, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 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 results of  operations of the Company. 

Date: April 4, 2006 
 By: /s/Marc Hazout                          Marc Hazout           Chief Executive Officer
#### MERZ v. INTERIOR CONDUIT & INSULATING CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1896.)

Action by Frank Merz against the Interior Conduit & Insulating Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for 1

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-3496

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Joseph William Folen, IV, * 

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 30, 1996

 Filed: June 4, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Joseph William Folen, IV, appeals his conviction following his

conditional guilty plea to conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 842(i), which

prohibits felons from possessing explosives that have travelled in

interstate commerce. We affirm.

Folen and a friend broke into a storage shed at a quarry in Pulaski

County, Arkansas, and stole explosives. After his arrest, Folen pleaded

guilty to an information charging him with conspiring "to possess

explosives which had been shipped or transported in interstate commerce."

Having reserved his right to challenge the constitutionality of section

842(i), Folen moved the court to dismiss the information, citing United

States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1634 (1995). The district court1

rejected Folen's challenge
-2-

and sentenced him to sixty months imprisonment and three years of

supervised release. 

On appeal, Folen argues that Congress has exceeded its power under

the Commerce Clause by continuing to regulate indefinitely the possession

of explosives after they have crossed state lines; and that his conduct,

which occurred entirely within Pulaski County, constituted a local offense

and did not substantially affect interstate commerce.

The constitutionality of a statute is a legal question we review de

novo. United States v. Monteleone, 77 F.3d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 1996).

Section 842(i)(1) makes it unlawful for a felon to "possess any

explosive which has been shipped or transported in interstate . . .

commerce." We hold that section 842(i)(1) is constitutional because its

express jurisdictional element ensures that it regulates only the

possession of explosives that have travelled in interstate commerce. Cf.

United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1104 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because it contains express jurisdictional element

limiting regulation to firearm possessions with explicit nexus to

interstate commerce). The interstate nexus is not dependent upon a

defendant's personal interstate transportation of the explosives he

possessed. Cf. United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 1995)

(per curiam) (for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), interstate nexus is

sufficient where firearm has at some time been in interstate commerce),

cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1364 (1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Allan Rowley, ChiefFinancial Officer of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                                       the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                                       the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|           | By:    | /s/ ALLAN ROWLEY        |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|
|           |   | Allan Rowley            |
|           |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| AUGUST 5, 2010 |   |                    |

 

----