alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1665

AN ACT

To allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by law,

by purchase or exchange as well as by donation.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1665

AN ACT

To allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land

for addition to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia,

as previously authorized by law, by purchase or exchange

as well as by donation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1665 EH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITION TO WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD, VIR2 GINIA.

3 (a) REMOVAL OF CONDITION ON BATTLEFIELD AD4 DITION.—Section 2(a)(2) of Public Law 102–541 (16

5 U.S.C. 425k note; 106 Stat. 3565) is amended by striking

6 ‘‘: Provided,’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Interior’’.

7 (b) AUTHORIZED METHODS OF ACQUISITION.—

8 (1) LIMITATIONS ON ACQUISITION METHODS.—

9 Section 3(a) of Public Law 101–214 (16 U.S.C.

10 425l(a)) is amended—

11 (A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and in12 serting ‘‘(1) Except as provided in paragraph

13 (2), the Secretary’’; and

14 (B) by adding at the end the following new

15 paragraph:

16 ‘‘(2) The lands designated ‘P04–04’ on the map re17 ferred to in section 2(a) numbered 326–40072E/89/A and

18 dated September 1990 may be acquired only by donation,

19 and the lands designated ‘P04–01’, ‘P04–02’, and ‘P04–

20 03’ on such map may be acquired only by donation, pur21 chase from willing sellers, or exchange.’’.

22 (2) REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITION

23 OF ADDITION.—Section 2 of Public Law 102–541

24 (16 U.S.C. 425k note; 106 Stat. 3565) is amended

25 by striking subsection (b).
3

•HR 1665 EH

1 (c) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 2(a) of Pub2 lic Law 101–214 (16 U.S.C. 425k(a)) is amended by strik3 ing ‘‘Spotslyvania’’ and inserting ‘‘Spotsylvania’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 12,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
Wayne A. BISSO, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-8459.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50512

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ESTEBAN CARMONA-CEPEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-551-1-WWJ

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Esteban Carmona-Cepeda appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Carmona-Cepeda contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Carmona-Cepeda maintains that he
No. 03-50512

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Carmona-Cepeda acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Thaddeus WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Cindi S. CURTIN, Warden.

No. 18-5098.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-20421

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARC T. HOWARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-160-1

_________________________________________________________________

June 1, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marc T. Howard appeals his jury trial conviction and sentence

for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. See 21

U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II).

Howard argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at

the rearraignment, when Howard entered his guilty plea, based on

counsel’s failure to inform him of the increased penalties he faced

due to his prior felony drug conviction and the government’s intent
2

to seek an enhanced sentence through its 21 U.S.C. § 851 filing.

Howard asserts that he understood through counsel that he was

facing no more than eight years’ imprisonment. The district

court’s grant of Howard’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea mooted

any issue arising from counsel’s assistance at the guilty plea

hearing. See United States v. Watch, 7 F.3d 422, 429 (5th Cir.

1993).

Howard argues that his rights to due process under the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the court’s vacation of

its order denying Howard’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and

setting the cause for trial, which resulted in a more onerous

sentence than what Howard was lead to believe at rearraignment when

he entered his guilty plea. Howard has not demonstrated error,

plain or otherwise. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160,

162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Howard argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress the cocaine seized from the luggage of his

codefendant. Howard’s motion did not seek the suppression of any

physical evidence. He sought suppression of his verbal statements.

In the district court, he expressly conceded his lack of standing

to challenge the seizure of the cocaine. Consequently, Howard

waived the Fourth Amendment issue. See United States v. Olano, 507
3

U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d

127, 129 (5th Cir. 1997).

A F F I R M E D.
Raymond M. MARTIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6919.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  Hornby  International  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB A for the period  ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Maureen Brogan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
7th day of September 2004.


/s/ Maureen Brogan
----------------------------
Maureen Brogan
Chief Executive Officer
# Euroopa Liidu C 13/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 13 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 65. aastakäik11. jaanuar 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 13

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

65. aastakäik11. jaanuar 2022

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2022/C 13/01 | Euro vahetuskurss — 10. jaanuar 2022 | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

2022/C 13/01

Euro vahetuskurss — 10. jaanuar 2022

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

| 11.1.2022 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 13/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2022

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 13/1

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

10. jaanuar 2022

(2022/C 13/01)

1 euro =

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,1318 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 130,45 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4381 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,83398 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 10,3038 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,0446 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | 146,20 |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 10,0253 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria leev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 24,357 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 358,40 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,5334 |
| RON | Rumeenia leu | 4,9449 |
| TRY | Türgi liir | 15,7183 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,5774 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,4327 |
| HKD | Hongkongi dollar | 8,8233 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,6753 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 1,5344 |
| KRW | Korea vonn | 1 355,68 |
| ZAR | Lõuna-Aafrika rand | 17,6999 |
| CNY | Hiina jüaan | 7,2128 |
| HRK | Horvaatia kuna | 7,5278 |
| IDR | Indoneesia ruupia | 16 181,90 |
| MYR | Malaisia ringit | 4,7536 |
| PHP | Filipiini peeso | 58,141 |
| RUB | Vene rubla | 84,9825 |
| THB | Tai baat | 38,074 |
| BRL | Brasiilia reaal | 6,3969 |
| MXN | Mehhiko peeso | 23,0597 |
| INR | India ruupia | 83,8000 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,1318

JPY

Jaapani jeen

130,45

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4381

GBP

Inglise nael

0,83398

SEK

Rootsi kroon

10,3038

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,0446

ISK

Islandi kroon

146,20

NOK

Norra kroon

10,0253

BGN

Bulgaaria leev

1,9558

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

24,357

HUF

Ungari forint

358,40

PLN

Poola zlott

4,5334

RON

Rumeenia leu

4,9449

TRY

Türgi liir

15,7183

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,5774

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,4327

HKD

Hongkongi dollar

8,8233

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,6753

SGD

Singapuri dollar

1,5344

KRW

Korea vonn

1 355,68

ZAR

Lõuna-Aafrika rand

17,6999

CNY

Hiina jüaan

7,2128

HRK

Horvaatia kuna

7,5278

IDR

Indoneesia ruupia

16 181,90

MYR

Malaisia ringit

4,7536

PHP

Filipiini peeso

58,141

RUB

Vene rubla

84,9825

THB

Tai baat

38,074

BRL

Brasiilia reaal

6,3969

MXN

Mehhiko peeso

23,0597

INR

India ruupia

83,8000

---

(1)  Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 26748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of the Commission and/or Commissioners may attend the following 
meetings:

North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Member Representatives 
Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings, Board of Trustees Corporate 
Governance and Human Resources Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, 
Compliance Committee, and Technology and Security Committee Meetings
The Ritz-Carlton, Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 
22202
May 11 (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. eastern time) and May 12 (8:30 a.m.-12:00 
p.m. eastern time), 2022

    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at: 
http://www.nerc.com/Pages/Calendar.aspx.
    The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may 
address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:

Docket No. RR22-2-000, North American Electric Reliability Corp. and 
Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc.
Docket No. RR21-8-000, North American Electric Reliability Corp.
Docket No. RD22-3-000, North American Electric Reliability Corp.
Docket No. EL21-99-000, Michael Mabee
Docket No. EL21-105-000, George R. Cotter

    For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-
8529, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2c8cdccc3d6cac3cc8cc4cbd0d1d6e2c4c7d0c18cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e1411101f0a161f105018170c0d0a3e181b0c1d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09650 Filed 5-4-22; 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>
Rash B. GHOSH, petitioner, v. CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-7369.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          81,150
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3930
<OTHER-SE>                                     (85,080)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               17,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,280)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.0)



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (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 report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this 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(d)
    
    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 (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (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.
  By:
    
    /s/ John E. JacksonName:
    
    John E. JacksonTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
 41
Exhibit 11.1

IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

RECONCILIATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON
SHARE

(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except for share amounts)

A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) is given in the following table:



|                                                            |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- | ------- | -------------------------------- | ---------- | --------------- | - | ----
|                                                            |  | Net Income(unaudited) |         | Sharesoutstanding andequivalents |            | Amount perShare
|Quarter ended June 30, 2009:                                |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS (available to common shareholders)                |  | $                     | 173,875 |                                  | 55,984,116 |                 | $ | 3.11
|Diluted EPS                                                 |  | $                     | 173,875 |                                  | 55,990,946 |                 | $ | 3.11
|Quarter ended June 30, 2008:                                |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS                                                   |  | $                     | 43,120  |                                  | 52,159,646 |                 | $ | 0.83
|Diluted EPS (No effect of preference shares: anti-dilutive) |  | $                     | 47,450  |                                  | 60,560,764 |                 | $ | 0.78
|Six months ended June 30, 2009                              |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS                                                   |  | $                     | 182,127 |                                  | 55,943,928 |                 | $ | 3.26
|Diluted EPS                                                 |  | $                     | 182,127 |                                  | 55,954,235 |                 | $ | 3.25
|Six months ended June 30, 2008                              |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS                                                   |  | $                     | 125,689 |                                  | 54,793,624 |                 | $ | 2.29
|Diluted EPS                                                 |  | $                     | 134,253 |                                  | 63,193,486 |                 | $ | 2.12
Jacob L. SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6237.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




**PURSUANT
      TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Stanley Shuster, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Grand Havana Enterprises, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
      ended December 25, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Grand Havana Enterprises,
      Inc.


By:
            /s/ Stanley
              ShusterName:Stanley ShusterIts:
                  Chief Executive and Financial
                  Officer