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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2320 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2320

  To allow States to use a portion of their welfare block grants for 
                      general education spending.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 1999

Mr. Gary Miller  of California (for himself and Mr. Green of Wisconsin) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To allow States to use a portion of their welfare block grants for 
                      general education spending.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO USE 10 PERCENT OF WELFARE 
              BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR TITLE XX PROGRAMS; AUTHORITY TO USE 
              PORTION OF SUCH FUNDS FOR GENERAL EDUCATION SPENDING.

    Section 404(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 604(d)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``provisions of law'' and inserting 
                ``laws''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) State laws relating to education.'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) Limitations on amounts transferable to certain state 
        programs.--For fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal 
        year:
                    ``(A) Title xx programs.--From the amount of any 
                grant made to a State under section 403(a) for the 
                fiscal year, the State may use for State programs 
                pursuant to title XX not more than the amount by 
                which--
                            ``(i) 10 percent of the amount of the 
                        grant; exceeds
                            ``(ii) the amount (if any) used by the 
                        State under subparagraph (B) for the fiscal 
                        year.
                    ``(B) State education programs.--From the amount of 
                any grant made to a State under section 403(a) (except 
                section 403(a)(5)) for the fiscal year, the State may 
                use for State programs pursuant to State education laws 
                not more than 5.75 percent of the amount of the 
                grant.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (3)(A)--
                    (A) by striking ``provision of law specified'' and 
                inserting ``law referred to''; and
                    (B) by striking ``provision of law to'' and 
                inserting ``law to''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00357-CV

Style: Talisman Energy USA Inc. and Statoil Texas Onshore Properties, LLC

v Enduring Resources, LLC

Dates motions filed*: June 13, 2013 and June 27, 2013

Type of motion:

Motion to extend time to file reporter’s record and Motion for extension of time to file 

reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Appellant and Court Reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 30, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: May 30, 2013

Date Requested: July 1, 2013 and June 27, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 27, 2013

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

On June 13, 2013, appellants filed a motion informing the Court that they had requested the reporter’s

record be prepared and had paid for its preparation, and they requested that we extend the time to file

the record to July 1, 2013. On June 27, 2013, the court reporter filed both the record and a request that

we extend the deadline for filing the record to June 27, 2013. We grant both motions and order the Clerk

of this Court to accept the record. Appellants’ brief will be due no later than July 29, 2013. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 4.1(a), 38.6(a).

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Court

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: July 2, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         868,522                 110,380
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,825                 163,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     50,638                  66,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,064,437                 348,993
<PP&E>                                          14,229                  35,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,113,690               3,694,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          658,708               2,984,663
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,580,000               1,580,000
<COMMON>                                       156,292                 156,292
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,281,310)             (1,026,758)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,113,690               3,694,197
<SALES>                                        261,700                 572,956
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               261,700                 572,956
<CGS>                                          233,301                 490,126
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  712,049               2,544,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,377                   1,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0               1,143,115
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,800                 265,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (489,166)             (2,223,204)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (489,166)             (2,223,204)
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,258,303               (152,577)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   769,137             (2,375,781)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.05                  (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03                  (0.16)


</TABLE>
Antonio ALVAREZ-MORENO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7138.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
                        Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors of
Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-56092, No. 333-30814, No. 333-72319, No. 333-17833) on Form S-8 of Guilford
Pharmaceuticals Inc. of our report dated February 9, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. and subsidiaries
(the "Company") as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, and the
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. Our report
refers to a change in the Company's revenue recognition policy for
non-refundable upfront fees in 2000.



/s/ KPMG LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 2001
December 29, 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMEKA MICHAEL UYAMAD U , Appellant

NO ’ s. 14

- 10

- 00393

- CR

14

- 10

- 00394

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED , that the appellant pay all costs expended in this

app eal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2328

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 2000

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to

reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program.

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

HR 2328 RFS

1 SECTION 1. GRANTS TO STATES

2 Section 314(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution

3 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1324(c)(2)) is amended by strik4 ing ‘‘$50,000,000’’ the first place it appears and all that

5 follows through ‘‘1990’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000 for

6 each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005’’.

7 SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

8 Section 314(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Con9 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1324(d)) is amended—

10 (1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘Otsego

11 Lake, New York; Oneida Lake, New York; Raystown

12 Lake, Pennsylvania; Swan Lake, Itasca County,

13 Minnesota;’’ after ‘‘Sauk Lake, Minnesota;’’;

14 (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘By’’ and in15 serting ‘‘Notwithstanding section 3003 of the Fed16 eral Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995

17 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 Stat. 734–736), by’’; and

18 (3) in paragraph (4)(B)(i) by striking

19 ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’.

20 SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARD21 ING NOTICE.

22 (a) PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT

23 AND PRODUCTS.—In the case of any equipment or prod24 ucts that may be authorized to be purchased with financial

25 assistance provided under this Act, it is the sense of the

26 Congress that entities receiving such assistance should, in
3

HR 2328 RFS

1 expending the assistance, purchase only American-made

2 equipment and products.

3 (b) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.—In

4 providing financial assistance under this Act, the head of

5 each Federal agency shall provide to each recipient of the

6 assistance a notice describing the statement made in sub7 section (a) by the Congress.

8 (c) NOTICE OF REPORT.—Any entity which receives

9 funds under this Act shall report any expenditures on for10 eign-made items to the Congress within 180 days of ex11 penditure.

Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Charles GARSKE, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-828

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Israel SANCHEZ, petitioner, v. Christian PFEIFFER, Warden.

No. 18-6689.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

* Revised: February 10, 2009

2008-1370

(Opposition No. 91/176,609)

HOLT’S COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Appellee.

M. Kelly Tillery , Pepper Hamilton, LLP, of Philade lphia, Pennsylvania, argued for

appellant.

* James W. Dabney , Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, of New York,

New York, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Victoria J.B. Doyle and

Mitchell Epner , and John F. Duffy , of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

* Attorney’s name corrected

.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1370

(Opposition No. 91/176,609)

HOLT’S COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office

in CASE NO(S). 91/176,609.

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (MAYER, CLEVENGER, and RADER Circuit Judges )

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED February 6, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
*Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions

that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled

principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and

burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court

has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-30181

_____________________

WILLIE THOMAS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Acting Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(CA-91-3961-J)

_________________________________________________________________

December 22, 1995

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-appellant Willie Thomas appeals the district

court's dismissal with prejudice of his federal habeas petition.

Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM

the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out by the

district court in its minute entry dated February 8, 1995. We

emphasize that we do not decide the question whether misinformation

concerning parole eligibility constitutes deficient performance of
-2-

counsel for the purpose of an ineffective assistance of counsel

claim. 

A F F I R M E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,147
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,227
<INVENTORY>                                      9,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,714
<PP&E>                                           5,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,405
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,420
<SALES>                                         54,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,389
<CGS>                                           39,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   165
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,181
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
```

```

----

Updated March 15, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000917823
<NAME>                        PROPHET 21, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,206
<SECURITIES>                                   1,555
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (240)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,313
<PP&E>                                         4,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,778)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,548
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       42
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,548
<SALES>                                        46,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46,614
<CGS>                                          24,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               16,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (304)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,530
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,539
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.90


</TABLE>
STATE NATIONAL BANK OF BIG SPRING, et al., petitioners, v. Steven T. MNUCHIN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

No. 18-307.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
CONSENT OF EXPERT



March 30, 2017



Eldorado Gold Corporation



United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Re: Eldorado Gold Corporation



I, Douglas Jones, do hereby consent to the
filing of the written disclosure regarding the description of mineral reserves of the Stratoni, Olympias, Perama Hill, and Efemcukuru
properties and of extracts from or a summary of other information pertaining to these projects, and the use of my name in the Annual
Information Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F of Eldorado Gold Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December
31, 2016 and any amendments thereto and any Registration Statement on Form S-8 incorporating by reference the Company’s Annual
Information Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F.



| | By: | /s/ Douglas Jones                   
| | --- | ------------------------------------
| |     | Douglas Jones, SME Registered Member
| |     |                                     
| |     |                                     
| |     |
Obaydul Hoque BHUIYAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6897

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael D. Siegal, the Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Olympic Steel,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
review of this annual report on Form 10-K:

         (1) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

         By:  /s/ Michael D. Siegal
              ---------------------
         Michael D. Siegal
         Olympic Steel, Inc.
         Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

         March 28, 2003



                                       60
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,633
<INVENTORY>                                      5,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,840
<PP&E>                                           8,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,230
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,510
<SALES>                                         27,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,457
<CGS>                                           20,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    52
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (222)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (176)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (265)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>