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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2607 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2607

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
7802 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, New York, as the ``Jeanne and Jules 
                     Manford Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JEANNE AND JULES MANFORD POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7802 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Jeanne and Jules Manford Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jeanne and 
Jules Manford Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SARAH ANN BRIGGS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 20 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of June, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jovan Jones, Also Known as Bruce Battle, Appellant.

*1073Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo Azael VARELA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40210

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 2011.

*288Lauretta Drake Bahry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eduardo Azael Varela-Ramirez (Varela) appeals following his guilty-plea conviction and sentence on one count of being illegally present in the United States after removal. Varela contends that he does not have a previous conviction that qualifies as a conviction of an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Although he concedes that his 60-month sentence of imprisonment does not exceed the applicable statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), Varela argues that the district court’s mistaken belief, based on the Presentence Report (PSR), that the statutory maximum sentence was 20 years of imprisonment may have influenced the selection of a sentence. He requests that the matter be remanded for resentencing.

As the Government acknowledges, the PSR was in error in stating that Varela faced a 20-year maximum sentence, the statutory maximum under § 1326(b)(2), on account of a previous Texas conviction for which he received a sentence of deferred adjudication probation. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 368-69 (5th Cir.2009). However, Varela’s failure to object to the PSR on this ground results in plain error review. *See United States v. Medina-Anicacio,*325 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir.2003). As he has not demonstrated that the inaccuracy in the PSR affected his substantial rights, Varela has not established plain error. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 *289U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Varela also argues that, on account of the stigma associated with the determination that he committed an aggravated felony, a remand is required so that the judgment and the PSR can be corrected to reflect that he was convicted and sentenced under § 1326(b)(1). The district court’s judgment, however, was not incorrect: it indicated that Varela had been convicted and sentenced under “8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 1326(b).” Varela has not demonstrated that this court should remand for a correction of a clerical error in the judgment; he likewise has not shown that this court should reform the judgment. *See*Fed.R.CrimP. 36; *Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d at 369. Further, as stated above, Varela has not demonstrated that his substantial rights were affected by any inaccuracy in the PSR. *See Puckett,*129 S.Ct. at 1429.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-24789) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive and Non-Statutory 
Stock Option Plan, the 1995 Stock Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of 
First Virtual Holdings Incorporated and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 
No. 333-42855) of First Virtual Holdings Incorporated and the related 
Prospectus of our report dated January 16, 1998, except for the first paragraph 
of Note 6 and Note 10, for which the date is March 20, 1998, including in the 
Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Virtual Holdings Incorporated for the year 
ended December 31, 1997, with respect to the financial statements, as amended, 
included in this Form 10-K/A.


                                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP
San Diego, California
October 19, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20475-20476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK GRB-C (M2)P.
    Date: April 24-25, 2000.
    Time: 7:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard Marriott, 2899 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Dan E. Matsumoto, Phd, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building Room 
6AS37B, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-8894.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.
    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB-7 (M3)P.
    Date: May 1-3, 2000.
    Time: 7:30 PM to 12:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Arkansas Excelsior Hotel, #3 Statehouse Plaza, Little 
Rock, AR 72201.
    Contact Person: Lakshmanan Sankaran, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building Room 
6AS25F, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-7799.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes,

[[Page 20476]]

Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 10, 2000.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-9442 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### PHILIPS et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1896.)

Action by William H. Philips against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and another. Julien T. Davies, George T. Aldrich, and C. K. Morrison, for appellants. Benjamin A. Gould, Jr., and James B. Ludlow, for respondents.

BARRETT, J.

The judgment in this case should be affirmed for the reasons assigned in the opinion handed down in the action brought by the same plaintiffs against the Metropolitan Elevated Railroad Company and another (42 N. Y. Supp. 33) with regard to No. 59 Murray street. We think the sum allowed for fee value in the present case, and also the award for rental damages, were fair and reasonable. The questions of law are substantially the same as in the Murray Street Case, and have been sufficiently considered in the opinion above referred to. No. other questions calling for special consideration are here presented. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
#### PETRIE, Respondent, v. STEWART, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 16, 1896.)

Action by Charles Petrie against Emily M. Stewart.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-21585,333-23937, 333-39817, 333-43586, 333-43588, 333-56772, 333-56774,333-67881, 333-71890, 333-101600,333-119707, and 333-119708 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 15, 2007, relating to thefinancial statements of Lightbridge, Inc. and subsidiaries, (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s change in its method ofaccounting for share based payments upon the adoption of Statement of Financial Standards No.123(R), “*Share-Based Payment*”, effective January 1,2006) and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-K of Lightbridge, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPBoston, MassachusettsMarch 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUNE
     30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001002040 
<NAME>                                         THE FOREFRONT GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,957,300
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,634,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                       278,850
<INVENTORY>                                        256,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,905,503
<PP&E>                                           1,505,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                     496,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,074,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,415,037
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            64,539
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,588,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,074,566
<SALES>                                          8,318,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,318,654
<CGS>                                            1,706,711
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,706,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,530,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   173,250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,792,403)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,792,403)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,792,403)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.61)
        

</TABLE>
#### Hector A. PADILLA, a.k.a. Alex Padilla, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70294.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.

Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hector A. Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under *6358 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate Padilla’s constitutional right to due process by denying Padilla’s motion for a continuance. *See id.*at 1247; *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/13/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM H. COKLEY, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. LARRY EMERY; GALE NORTON, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-1130 (D.C. No. 94-Z-1168) (Colorado)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, KELLYand LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

William H. Cokley filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He contends that he was unconsti tutionally held to be an habitual criminal because the state failed to prove a third prior offense as required by the Colorado statute. The state court procedura lly barred Mr. Cokley from raising this issue because he didn’t raise it withi n the Colorado statute of limitations governing post conviction claims. The district court in the present action held that Mr. Cokley’s federal habeas claim was procedurally barred because he failed to establish cause for the defaul t in state court and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged constitutional violation. The district court held further that Mr. Cokley had failed to allege f acts sufficient to establish a fundamental miscarriage of justice so as to bring h im within the exception to the cause and prejudice standard. The sole issue Mr. Cokley asserts on appeal is thatthe district court erred in holding he failed to establish a miscarriage of justice sufficient to avoid the procedural bar. Mr. Cokley contends he has establi shed his actual innocence of the charge of being an habitual criminal because “the prosecution failed to sustain its burden of proving the existence of 3 prior felo ny convictions.” Appellant’s Opening Brief at p. 3, ¶ 5. The state correctly po ints out Mr. Cokley did not assert in the court below and does not assert here that he did not commit the third felony he questions, only that the prosecution fail ed to prove he committed it.-3-

Thus, the district court was correct in concluding that Mr. Cokley has failed to meet his burden of establishing actual innocence of the third felony.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
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 amended annual report of Trycera
Financial, Inc. (formerly Whitelight Technologies, Inc.) (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the year ended December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer of the
Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 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:  February 25, 2005

/s/ Bryan Kenyon
Bryan Kenyon, Treasurer
(Chief financial officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jon A. DeLuca, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2006



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Jon A. DeLuca            
|Jon A. DeLuca                
|President and                
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

d0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138438

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138438 COA: 287354 Genesee CC: 05-016527-FH ROBERT JAMES BETTIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).