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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1605 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1605

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

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

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 402 North Walnut Street in Harrison, Arkansas, as the ``J. Smith 
         Henley Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 402 
North Walnut Street in Harrison, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``J. Smith Henley Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``J. Smith Henley Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALVIN BERRIAN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1181

[ August 2, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 08

- 23080 CF10A

.

Alvin Berrian, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, C IKLIN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Jamal Martinez HANCOCK, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-940.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.4


 


List of Holders


 


	
        Purchaser
	 	Subscription Amount
	Steven G. Lampe	 	$150,000
	Ingalls & Snyder 	 	$100,000
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                      9
                       
<MULTIPLIER>                   1
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996           
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996    
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1    
<CASH>                            27,774,060   
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     0             
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                  15,725,000   
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           0   
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>      102,360,467             
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     0   
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       0   
<LOANS>                          286,204,870   
<ALLOWANCE>                        3,168,098   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   459,137,773   
<DEPOSITS>                       372,792,254              
<SHORT-TERM>                      21,797,343   
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                6,165,548   
<LONG-TERM>                       17,516,476   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0   
<PREFERRED>                                0   
<COMMON>                               4,763   
<OTHER-SE>                        33,501,262   
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>   459,137,773   
<INTEREST-LOAN>                   27,005,660   
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  6,139,657   
<INTEREST-OTHER>                     567,430   
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                  33,712,747   
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                11,770,388   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                14,085,519   
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>             19,627,228   
<LOAN-LOSSES>                        594,977   
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                         0   
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                   17,649,146   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,153,107   
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         4,196,676   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0   
<CHANGES>                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                       4,196,676   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           7.65   
<EPS-DILUTED>                           7.65   
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                          8.71   
<LOANS-NON>                          913,000   
<LOANS-PAST>                         346,000   
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                      36,000   
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                            0   
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   2,899,165   
<CHARGE-OFFS>                        762,837   
<RECOVERIES>                         436,793   
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  3,168,098   
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               2,068,469   
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                        0   
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>            1,099,629   
        


</TABLE>
Tracy CHANG, Howard Hsu, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1066.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Peter R. RUBENS, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 18-5807.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1869

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand

the prohibition on stalking, and for other purposes.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1869

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the

prohibition on stalking, and for other purposes.

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

•HR 1869 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stalking Prevention

3 and Victim Protection Act of 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE PROHIBITION ON STALKING.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2261A of title 18, United

6 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘§ 2261A. Stalking

8 ‘‘(a) Whoever—

9 ‘‘(1) for the purpose of stalking an individual,

10 travels or causes another to travel in interstate or

11 foreign commerce, uses or causes another to use the

12 mail or any facility in interstate or foreign com13 merce, or enters or leaves, or causes another to

14 enter or leave, Indian country; or

15 ‘‘(2) within the special maritime and territorial

16 jurisdiction of the United States or within Indian

17 country, stalks an individual,

18 shall be punished as provided in section 2261.

19 ‘‘(b) For purposes of this section, a person stalks an

20 individual if that person engages in conduct—

21 ‘‘(1) with the intent to injure or harass the in22 dividual; and

23 ‘‘(2) that places the individual in reasonable

24 fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury (as de25 fined for the purposes of section 2119) to, that indi26 vidual, a member of that individual’s immediate
3

•HR 1869 EH

1 family (as defined in section 115), or that individ2 ual’s intimate partner.

3 ‘‘(c) The court shall at the time of sentencing for an

4 offense under this section issue an appropriate protection

5 order designed to protect the victim from further stalking

6 by the convicted person. Such an order shall remain in

7 effect for such time as the court deems necessary, and may

8 be modified, extended or terminated at any time after no9 tice to the victim and opportunity for a hearing.’’.

10 (b) DETENTION PENDING TRIAL.—Section

11 3156(a)(4)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is amended

12 by inserting ‘‘, or section 2261A’’ after ‘‘117’’.

13 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

14 at the beginning of chapter 110A of title 18, United States

15 Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section

16 2261A and inserting the following:

‘‘2261A. Stalking.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 10,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,543,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,376,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,511,000
<INVENTORY>                                     51,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,505,000
<PP&E>                                       1,239,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 714,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,905,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,490,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,351,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,905,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,865,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,119,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,371,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               680,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             529,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,834,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,834,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,834,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. Michael HERROLD.

No. 17-1445.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Quarles v. United States,* 587 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 914, 202 L.Ed.2d 640 (2019).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Financial Data Schedule represents Consolidated Marcus Cable Company,
L.L.C. and Subsidiaries as reflected in the Form 10-Q for the period ended 
June 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000910629
<NAME> MARCUS CABLE COMPANY, L.L.C.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,858 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,983)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,516
<PP&E>                                         780,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,734)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,285,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          199,447
<BONDS>                                      1,722,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,362,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,285,044
<SALES>                                        254,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,792
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  370,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (149,209)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (149,209)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (149,209)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Allen D. GORION, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5970.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO JACOBO,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73232

Agency No. A206-407-614

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 16, 2016**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Jacobo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-73232 

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and review de novo due 

process claims, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny 

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Jacobo failed to 

establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or 

acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity if 

returned to Mexico. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[a] 

government does not acquiesce in the torture of its citizens merely because it is 

aware of torture but powerless to stop it”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Thus, we reject Jacobo’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim 

violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 

2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**EXHIBIT****31.1**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Kenneth D. Naumann, certify that:

 

*1.*     I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Ditech Networks, Inc.;

 

*2.    * Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

 

 
| August   28, 2012 | /s/ KENNETH D. NAUMANN                  |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|              | Kenneth D. Naumann                      |
| * *          | *Chief Executive Officer and President* |
| * *          | *(Principal Executive Officer)*         |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6814

KEVIN M. BALLANCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON, Assistant

Director; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director; S.

K. YOUNG; SERGEANT STANLEY; CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER YOUNG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EDWARDS;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ANDERSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-01-410-7)

Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 24, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin M. Ballance, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin M. Ballance appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. 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. See Ballance v. Angelone, No. CA-01-410-7 (W.D.

Va. May 3, 2002). 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
Edward BISHOP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8448.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

*1591Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Jesse GUARDADO, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-9284.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied. Justice THOMAS, concurring in the denial of certiorari: I concur for the reasons set out in *Reynolds v. Florida,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 27, ---L.Ed.2d ---- (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring). Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *Reynolds v. Florida,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 27, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Information for inclusion in the 10-QSB, Financial Data Schedule
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-09-1998
<CASH>                                         $776,862
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,291,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (190,500)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,525,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,687,688
<PP&E>                                         6,116,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,207,606)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,889,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,790,198
<BONDS>                                        7,093,327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,800
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,972,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,889,461
<SALES>                                        20,290,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20,290,975
<CGS>                                          12,421,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,421,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,999,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               183,423
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             598,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,912,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,912,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,912,044)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.70)
        


</TABLE>
Christopher HOSKINS, petitioner, v. Perry FUCHS.

No. 18-400.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3848

___________________________

Harold R Stanley

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee

____________

Appeal from United States Tax Court

____________

 Submitted: June 30, 2015

Filed: July 2, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Harold Stanley appeals after the tax court entered a decision upholding the

1

Commissioner’s assessment of tax deficiencies and penalties he owed for the 2010

and 2011 tax years. He argues (1) that the tax court erroneously failed to construe

The Honorable Joseph W. Nega, United States Tax Court Judge.

1
one of his filings as a motion to vacate or revise, under Tax Court Rule 162, and (2)

that the tax court erred in its liability determinations, because his wages were not

subject to federal income taxation. The Commissioner urges affirmance, and has

moved for sanctions against Stanley in the amount of $8,000.

Upon careful review, we first conclude that the filing at issue, even when

liberally construed, did not manifest Stanley’s intent to revise or to vacate the court’s

decision because, among other reasons, he did not reference any order entered by the

tax court, nor did he cite Rule 162. See Tax Ct. R. 50 (application to court for order

shall be by motion in writing, which shall state with particularity grounds therefor and

shall set forth relief or order sought); Tax Ct. R. 162 (motion to vacate or revise

decision). We further conclude that the tax court’s liability determinations were

proper. See Morehouse v. Comm’r, 769 F.3d 616, 619 (8th Cir. 2014) (this court

reviews tax court’s conclusions of law de novo, and its findings of fact for clear

error); see also 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1) (gross income means all income from whatever

source derived, including compensation for services); United States v. Gerads, 999

F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (wages are within definition of income

under Internal Revenue Code and Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

We also conclude that sanctions are appropriate in this case. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38; Gerards, 999 F.2d at 1256-57. Accordingly, we grant the

Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000. 

____________________________________

-2-