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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4165 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4165

    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to publish a report 
regarding veterans who receive benefits under laws administered by the 
   Secretary, disaggregated by sex and minority group member status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 2019

 Mr. Delgado introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to publish a report 
regarding veterans who receive benefits under laws administered by the 
   Secretary, disaggregated by sex and minority group member status.

    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 ``Improving Benefits for Underserved 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT REGARDING VETERANS WHO RECEIVE BENEFITS UNDER LAWS 
              ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall publish 
a report regarding veterans who receive benefits under laws 
administered by the Secretary, including the Transition Assistance 
Program under sections 1142 and 1144 of title 10, United States Code.
    (b) Data.--The data regarding veterans published in the report 
under subsection (a)--
            (1) shall be disaggregated by--
                    (A) sex; and
                    (B) minority group member status; and
            (2) may not include any personally identifiable 
        information.
    (c) Minority Group Member Defined.--In this section, the term 
``minority group member'' has the meaning given that term in section 
544 of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3847

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Elizabeth A. Van Buskirk, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 19, 2009

Filed: May 22 2009

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Van Buskirk appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon

revoking her supervised release. Counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was

unreasonable. 

We denied counsel’s motion and requested briefs addressing whether the

district court committed reversible procedural error by failing to calculate or consider
-2-

the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range. After reviewing the briefs, we conclude that

there was no procedural error. Although the court did not specifically refer to the

Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range at the sentencing hearing, the record as a whole

reflects that the court was aware of the range: the violation worksheet was available

to the court and counsel, both the government and defense counsel requested that Van

Buskirk be sentenced at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range, and the court

conferred with the probation officer immediately prior to imposing the sentence. The

record also reflects that, recognizing the advisory Guidelines range, the court chose

to sentence Van Buskirk above the range after considering that she had repeatedly

violated the conditions of her supervised release, that she was a methamphetamine

addict and manufacturer, that she had originally received a significant sentence

reduction, and that she was a bad influence on her son. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e),

3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C) (sentencing factors).

Finally, we conclude that Van Buskirk’s sentence is not unreasonable, see

United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), because it was

within the statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3559(a)(1), 3583(e)(3), and it resulted from the court’s consideration of proper

sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

______________________________
Clifton JACKSON, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-5977.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Lorain County denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                             CONSENT OF ACCOUNTANT


        We hereby consent to the use of our report dated August 20, 1999, on the
financial statements of Capri Corp. and Subsidiary for the years ended June 30,
1999 and 1998. Such report is being included in the Registration Statement
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10-SB) of Capri Corp.



                                                 /s/ Klesman, Halper & Co., P.C.



Palos Heights, Illinois

April 5, 2000
#### The Seaboard Oil Company, a corporation, *Appellant,*v. R. O. Girvin and John J. Daley, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision filed February 20, 1929.

*249
      *Julian Hartridge,*for Appellant;

*George M. Powell,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This canse having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order appealed from herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., Buford, J., and Long, Circuit Judge, concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00558-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

GERALD CASTRO

On Appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-DHC-05206

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed as moot. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED AS MOOT in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 9, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
     EMERALD CAPITAL INVESTMENT INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
     ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     4,994

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         4,994
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,994
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,868,698
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,994
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
_____________

No. 95-3695MN

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota.

Erick Dewray Russell, also *

known as Kenyatta Dewray Khalid,* [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: March 14, 1996

 Filed: May 10, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, JOHN R. GIBSON, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Erick Dewray Russell appeals his conviction of being a felon in

possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1994). We affirm.

After a gang member shot at Russell, Russell broke into Charles

Stead's home to take cover. Stead jumped out of a bedroom window and

called the police. Several police officers responded to Stead's call and

found Russell looking out of an upstairs window. The officers ordered

Russell to come downstairs, and then Russell walked down the steps and was

arrested. After Russell was placed in a police car, Russell told Officer

Jason King that his leg hurt. King responded by asking, "What happened?"

Russell then explained he may have been shot. Although Russell did have

a superficial gun shot wound on his lower leg, King testified that he

examined Russell's leg and did not see any blood or a wound. A few minutes
-2-

later, Russell told two different police officers he had fired shots at the

gang member with his own handgun. When the police searched Stead's home

they found a loaded handgun and several expended shells in an upstairs

bedroom. 

Russell contends the district court should have suppressed his

statements about the handgun because they were not made voluntarily. We

reject Russell's contention because the police officers did not engage in

any coercive conduct. United States v. Hatten, 68 F.3d 257, 262 (8th Cir.

1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1026 (1996). Indeed, the record is clear

that Russell volunteered the information about possessing a handgun. We

also reject Russell's contention that his statements were inadmissible

because he had not been given Miranda warnings. Officer King's questions

were necessary to decide if Russell needed medical attention, and the other

officers simply asked Russell for his name and other routine background

information. See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601-02 (1990)

(plurality opinion); United States v. McLaughlin, 777 F.2d 388, 391 (8th

Cir. 1985). Thus, the officers were not required to give Russell Miranda

warnings because none of their questions were reasonably likely to elicit

an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301-02

(1980). Finally, Russell contends the district court improperly restricted

his cross-examination of homeowner Stead. We disagree. The district court

properly limited Russell's cross-examination based on concerns of

relevance, harassment, confusion of the issues, and because many of

Russell's questions were cumulative. United States v. Durham, 868 F.2d

1010, 1013 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 954 (1989).

We thus affirm Russell's conviction.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### NUMBER 13

- 17

- 001 52

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI C EDINBURG

MIGUEL GONZALEZ MEJI A , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 430 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion to supplement the record and

to stay due date for appellant’s brief. The reporter’s record in th is cause w as filed on

November 13, 2017. Appellant has advised this Court that the record does not contain

proceedings held on the afternoon of January 23, 2017, or the entire day s of January 24,2

2017, February 4, 2017, and February 2, 2017. Because a complete reporter’s record

has not been filed, appellant requests that the due date for appellant’s brief be suspended

until a complete record has been filed with the Court.

When a relevant item has been omitted from the reporter’s record, the appellate

court may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate

court a supplemental reporter’s record containing the omitted items. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

34.6(d). Accordingly, appellant’s motion to supplement the reporter’ s record is

GRANTED and the appeal is ABATED . Appellant’s motion to suspend briefing is

GRANTED.

The court reporter of the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County is directed to

prepare a supplemental reporter’s record to include proceedings held on the afternoon of

January 23, 2017, and the entire day s of January 24, 2017, February 4, 2017, and

February 2, 2017. The supplemental record shall be filed with this Court within 30 days

from the date of this order.

Th is appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental reporter’s record

and upon further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed th e 10th day o f January , 201 8

.
EXHIBIT 12

                          ADVANCED GLASSFIBER YARNS LLC
                          STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                    (in thousands, except ratio information)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   Advanced Glassfiber Yarns
                         ----------------------------------------------------              Predecessor Business
                                       Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended   ----------------------------------------------
                        Year Ended      December 31,        September 30,                  Year Ended December 31,
                        December 31,   --------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------------
                        -------------
                           1999               1998             1998               1997              1996            1995
                        -------------  -----------------    -----------------   -----------    --------------   --------------
<S>                       <C>              <C>               <C>                <C>              <C>              <C>
EARNINGS:

Income from continuing
  operations before
  income taxes              5,796            4,275            59,235             82,866           83,294             74,535

Fixed charges              37,790            9,326               898              1,076              618                457
                        ----------          -------          --------            -------         --------           -------
                           43,586           13,601            60,133             83,942           83,912             74,992
                        ==========          =======          ========            =======         ========           =======
FIXED CHARGES:
  Interest, including
   amortization of debt
   issuance costs          36,824            9,113               --                 --                --                --
                        ----------          -------          --------            -------         --------           -------
  Portion of rents
   representative of
   interest factor            966              213              898              1,076               618               457
                        ----------          -------          --------            -------         --------           -------
                           37,790            9,326              898              1,076               618               457
                        ==========          =======          ========            =======         ========           =======
RATIO OF EARNINGS
TO FIXED CHARGES             1.2x             1.5x               67x                78x              136x              164x
                        ==========          =======          ========            =======         ========           =======

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2197

J. ALAN BRICKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND MENTAL HYGIENE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-3624-S)

Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Alan Bricker, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Ageloff, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant's suit

filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42

U.S.C. § 12112 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bricker v. Maryland,

No. CA-95-3624-S (D. Md. July 26, 1996). 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
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08035]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-3-000]


Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for 
Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Requesting 
Questions and Comments on Fiscal Year 2021 Other Federal Agency Cost 
Submissions

    In its Order On Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual 
Charges Bill Appeals And Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures, 
109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004) (October 8 Order), the Commission set forth an 
annual process for Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs 
related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. Pursuant to 
the established process, the Chief of Financial Operations, Financial 
Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, on October 25, 
2021, issued a letter requesting the OFAs to submit their costs by 
December 31, 2021 using the OFA Cost Submission Form.
    Upon receipt of the agency submissions, the Commission posted the 
information in eLibrary, and issued, on March 10, 2022, a notice 
announcing the date for a technical conference to review the submitted 
costs. On March 24, 2022 the Commission held the technical conference. 
Technical conference transcripts, submitted cost forms, and detailed 
supporting documents are all available for review under Docket No. 
AD22-3. These documents are accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, 
using the ``eLibrary'' link and are available for review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    Interested parties may file specific questions and comments on the 
FY 2021 OFA cost submissions with the Commission under Docket No. AD22-
3, no later than May 2, 2022. Once filed, the Commission will forward 
the questions and comments to the OFAs for response.
    Anyone with questions pertaining to the technical conference or 
this notice should contact Raven A. Rodriguez at (202) 502-6276 (via 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85f7e4f3e0ebabf7eae1f7ece2f0e0ffc5e3e0f7e6abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f2d3e293a31712d303b2d36382a3a251f393a2d3c71383029">[email protected]</span></a>).

    Dated: April 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08035 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ WILLIAM J. CAMPBELLWilliam J. CampbellChief Executive Officer


November 9, 2007