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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2301 

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as the ‘‘Harry S. Truman 

Union Station’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2015 

Mr. CLEAVER (for himself, Mr. CLAY, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mrs. 

HARTZLER, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. 

LONG, and Mr. SMITH of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as the 

‘‘Harry S. Truman Union Station’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—Union Station, located at 405 

5 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Harry S. Truman Union 

7 Station’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2301 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harry S. Truman 

3 Union Station’’. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2327 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2327

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who 
    supported the United States in Laos during the Vietnam War era.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2015

  Mr. Costa (for himself, Mr. Cook, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
 Honda, Ms. Meng, Mr. Takano, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Cicilline, 
    Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr. Ruiz) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who 
    supported the United States in Laos during the Vietnam War era.

    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 ``Hmong Veterans' Service Recognition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2402(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(10) Any individual--
                    ``(A) who--
                            ``(i) was naturalized pursuant to section 
                        2(1) of the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act 
                        of 2000 (Public Law 106-207; 8 U.S.C. 1423 
                        note); and
                            ``(ii) at the time of the individual's 
                        death resided in the United States; or
                    ``(B) who--
                            ``(i) the Secretary determines served with 
                        a special guerrilla unit or irregular forces 
                        operating from a base in Laos in support of the 
                        Armed Forces of the United States at any time 
                        during the period beginning February 28, 1961, 
                        and ending May 7, 1975; and
                            ``(ii) at the time of the individual's 
                        death--
                                    ``(I) was a citizen of the United 
                                States or an alien lawfully admitted 
                                for permanent residence in the United 
                                States; and
                                    ``(II) resided in the United 
                                States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this Act shall apply 
with respect to an individual dying on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
MAILING ADDRESS GUIDE

To Mail a Payment :

U.S. Coast Guard Civil Penalties

P.O. Box 531112

Atlanta, GA 30353-1112

***If Sending Payment by Express Mail Such as FedEx Please Use the address below***

Bank of America 

Lockbox Number 531112 (CFP)

1075 Loop Road

Atlanta, GA 30337-6002

Make Checks Payable to: U.S. Coast Guard

To Submit Evidence / Request an Extension/ Request a Hearing

U.S. Coast Guard Hearing Office

4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 600

CG HO MS 7160

Arlington, VA 20598-7160

Be Sure to include your Activity Number on your documents
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6514

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LAWRENCE WOODARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-96-109)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Woodard appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for a writ of audita querela. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Woodard,

No. CR-96-109 (W.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED AUGUST 31, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                          48,569
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    407,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               474,208
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 474,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,401
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     284,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   474,208
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,991)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[870 NE2d 688, 839 NYS2d 448]

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gerald Van Horn, Respondent, v County of Cayuga et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Decided June 12, 2007

*1016APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Susan B. Marris,*Liverpool, *James S. Fiedler*and *Gregory J. Allen*for appellants.

*Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General,*Albany *(Patrick Barnett-Mulligan, Barbara D. Underwood*and *Andrea Oser*of counsel), for Workers’ Compensation Board, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Third Department, with directions to remand to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consonant with this Court’s decision in *Matter of LaCroix v Syracuse Exec. Air Serv., Inc.*(8 NY3d 348 [2007]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
           PEERLESS GROUP, INC.

    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE INFOMATION)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                      Year Ended December 31,
                                                      -----------------------  
                                                       1994     1995     1996
                                                      -----     ----     ----  
<S>                                                 <C>       <C>      <C> 
EARNINGS (LOSS)

Net income (loss).................................  $ (565)   $1,830   $2,293 

Less accretion to redemption value relating to 
 redeemable common stock .........................     (51)      (58)     (44)
                                                    ------    ------   ------

Adjusted net income (loss)........................  $ (616)   $1,772   $2,249 
                                                    ======    ======   ======

SHARES

Weighted average common shares outstanding (1) ...   1,949     1,976    2,745
Common shares issued on assumed exercise of stock
  options and warrants ...........................       -     1,799    1,530
Less shares assumed repurchased ..................       -      (127)    (220)
                                                    ------    ------   ------

Weighted average common and common equivalent
   shares ........................................   1,949     3,648    4,055
                                                    ======    ======   ======
Earnings (loss) per common and common equivalent 
  share...........................................  $(0.32)    $0.49    $0.55
                                                    ======    ======   ======
</TABLE> 
-------------------
(1)  Includes, for all periods presented, shares of the Company's common stock
     and options and warrants to purchase shares of the Company's common stock
     which have been issued within one year of the initial public offering date,
     in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mike Clarity, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered on May 10, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
LTNITED STATES OF AMERTCA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UMTED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST CUARD

Complainant

vs.

CAREY GIBSON

Respondent

Docket N umber 2 023 -0006

Enforcement Activity No. 7602553

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: Januarv 26. 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judqe: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appearances:

CWO Hector Melendez

USCG Sector St. Petersburg

For the Coast Guard

Carey Gibson, Pro Se

For Respondent
On or about Janu ary 24, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a revised Motion Approval of for Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case under 33 C.F.R. g

I have carefully rev

20.50

iewed

2.

the terms of the Seftlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby oRDERED, the settlemenr Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

Done and dated January 26,2023, at

Alameda, California

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard

tu
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report of mPhase Technologies,Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10K for the fiscal yearended June 30, 2008, as amended by Amendment No.1 on Form 10K/A as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando,Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge: 

1. 

The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

2. 

The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Ronald A. Durando                      Ronald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer 

March 13, 2009 

----
#### FERRIS et al., Respondents, v. HARD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 16, 1896.)

Action by Peter J. Ferris as trustee, etc., and the city of Buffalo against Samuel B. Hard and Margaret H. Hard, impleaded, etc.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-20283 Conference Calendar

__________________ DAVID DELEON RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus R. G. BELANGER; L. A. MASTERS, Dr.; E. W. BROCK, Major; PATRICIA L. GEE; L. L. BREWER; M. B. THALER; TIMOTHY MASSEY; GEORGE R. PIERSON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-93-2286
- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Deleon Ramirez, #482200, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants-appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The district court did not err in ruling that Ramirez’s request for surgical relief for his hernia was rendered moot by his 1994 surgery. See Powell v. McCormack , 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). Ramirez has abandoned his claim for the restoration of good-time credit. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Ramirez’s motions “toNo. 96-20283 -2- intervene” and for a temporary restraining order raise factual questions for the first time on appeal and are denied. AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,025,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,042,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (22,434)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,488,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,112,514
<PP&E>                                       2,645,559
<DEPRECIATION>                               (625,566)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,377,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,772,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    304,366
<COMMON>                                        33,344
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,726,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,377,479
<SALES>                                      3,073,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,300,460
<CGS>                                        1,519,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,608,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                147,102
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            109,102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109,102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
#### SPEARS, Respondent, v. WILLIS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

May 8, 1894.)

Action by James Spears against Eben Willis.

Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.

Swift & Sanford (Theo. H. Swift, of counsel), for appellant.

Ledyard P. Hale, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We think the judgment should be affirmed. The opinion written when this case was first before us (Spears v. Willis, 69 Hun, 408, 23 N. Y. Supp. 549), the facts not having been materially changed on the last trial, renders the writing of another unnecessary.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. KIRBY GLENN WORRELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:06-cr-00060-FL-2) Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Cannon, III, CANNON LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kirby Glenn Worrell, Jr., pled guilty to larceny of government property and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2000), and was sentenced to thirteen months in prison. On appeal, Worrell argues that the district court erred by denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 3E1.1 (2006), becauseWorrell admitted to using cocaine at least two times while on pretrial release and missed at least six weeks of substance abuse treatment. Finding no error, we affirm. We review the district court's determination that Worrell failed to accept responsibility for clear error. SeeUnited States v. Kise , 369 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 2004). One of the factors the court may consider in deciding whether to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is whether the defendant has voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct. See USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(b)). Worrell disputes the district court's decision to deny him the adjustment because he argues that his drug use is unrelated to the criminal conduct to which he pled guilty. Most appellate courts have held that a sentencing court does not clearly err if it chooses to deny an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on the commission of criminal conduct that is different from the crime to which the defendant pled guilty. See United States v. Prince , 204 F.3d 1021, 1023-243 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Ceccarani , 98 F.3d 126, 130-31 (3d Cir. 1996); United States v. Byrd , 76 F.3d 194, 197 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. McDonald , 22 F.3d 139, 144 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Pace , 17 F.3d 341, 343 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. O'Neil , 936 F.2d 599, 600-01 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Watkins , 911 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1990). In light of these authorities, we are persuaded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Worrell was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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. AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                         TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,
Elijio V. Serrano, Chief Financial Officer of EGL, Inc., a Texas corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

         (1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
         March 31, 2003 (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.


Dated:   May 15, 2003                                    /s/ Elijio V. Serrano
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Elijio V. Serrano
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### VAN COTT et al., Respondents, v. MACKAY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 31, 1896.)

Action by Joshua N. Van Cott, Jr., Alexander H. Van Cott, and Lincoln Van Cott, executors, etc., against Donald Mackay, executor, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 1134.