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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 103 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide authority to increase 

the debt limit when an Act of Congress provides budget authority or 

reduces revenues, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2013 

Mr. FATTAH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide authority 

to increase the debt limit when an Act of Congress 

provides budget authority or reduces revenues, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Fiscal Cliffs 

5 Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 103 IH

1 (1) Congress has been granted exclusive author2 ity for the collecting and appropriating of revenue in 

3 Article I of the Constitution. 

4 (2) Any increase in the public debt limit is nec5 essary in response to obligations and reduced rev6 enue authorized by Congress. 

7 (3) Stability and predictability in the full faith 

8 and credit of the United States are critical to eco9 nomic security. 

10 (4) World markets are sensitive to the fiscal af11 fairs of the United States given its role as a global 

12 leader and its status as the wealthiest nation. 

13 SEC. 3. CHANGE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT WHEN ACT OF CON14 GRESS PROVIDES BUDGET AUTHORITY OR 

15 REDUCES REVENUES. 

16 Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 

17 States Code, is amended— 

18 (1) by striking ‘‘The face amount’’ and insert19 ing ‘‘(1) The face amount’’; 

20 (2) by inserting ‘‘(increased or decreased, as 

21 necessary, by the applicable amount)’’ after 

22 ‘‘$14,294,000,000,000’’; and 

23 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), the Secretary 

25 of the Treasury shall determine the applicable amount 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 103 IH

1 after the enactment of any Act of Congress that provides 

2 budget authority (as defined in section 3(2) of the Con3 gressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(2))) or re4 duces revenues and shall publish such amount in the Fed5 eral Register. 

6 ‘‘(B) For purposes of subparagraph (B), the term 

7 ‘applicable amount’ means the amount determined by the 

8 Secretary of the Treasury to be required to meet existing 

9 commitments.’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 1996 and the related
condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the nine months
ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. Dollars are in thousands except per share amounts.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                       186
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,916
<PP&E>                                           5,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,392
<BONDS>                                          4,819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,083
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,224
<CGS>                                           20,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,215
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,036
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,179
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,179
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
Thomas Franklin BOWLING, Petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 19-6710.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4723.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-4723

DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXR. OF THE ESTATE OF DAVIS, ET AL.,

APPELLEES, v. MERCY ST. VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER ET AL., APPELLANTS.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., Slip Opinion No. 

2023-Ohio-4723.]

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. 

Mem. Hosp. and cause remanded.

(Nos. 2022-0460 and 2022-0658―Submitted December 20, 2023―Decided 

December 28, 2023.)

APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Lucas County,

No. L-21-1095, 2022-Ohio-1266.

__________________

{¶ 1} The judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals is reversed on the 

authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio4670, __ N.E.3d __, and the cause is remanded to that court for it to consider 

appellees’ arguments that it previously declined to address.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,

and DETERS, JJ., concur.

_________________

Gary W. Osborne and Jack S. Leizerman, for appellees, Donald A. Davis

and Dustin Davis.

Robison, Curphey, & O’Connell, L.L.C., Julia Smith Wiley, and Kayla L. 

Henderson, for appellant Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center.

Reminger Co., L.P.A., Taylor C. Knight, and Erin Siebenhar Hess, for 

appellants Fayyaz H. Hashmi, M.D., Mercy Health North, L.L.C., f.k.a. Mercy 

Health System-Northern Region, and Mercy Medical Partners, Northern Region, 

L.L.C.

_________________
Lee TURNER, Jr., Petitioner v. LOUISIANA.

No. 18-9710

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
Ashley RIOS, et vir, Petitioners, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES.

No. 19-7659.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       8,023,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,456,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    878,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,996,000
<PP&E>                                      10,279,000<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,068,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,553,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,335,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,068,000
<SALES>                                     22,812,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,812,000
<CGS>                                       16,895,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,766,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,328,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               680,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (98,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,113,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   111,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,002,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,002,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
<FN>
<F1>The values for the tags of (Receivables) and (PP&E) represent net amounts.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Manuel de Jesus VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 19-8035.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Bruce Randol MERRYMAN, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 19-5934

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Opinion filed April 19 , 201 2



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________


### No. 11

- 11

- 00267

- C V

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.J. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Callahan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19,521

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a final order signed on September 1, 2011, in a suit affecting the

parent

- child relationship

. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. The clerk of this court notified a ppellant, K.J., by a written letter dated December 12

, 2011, that his brief was due for filing on or before January 2 , 2012. Appellant subsequently filed

a motion for extension of time to file hi s brief. The court granted his motion in part by extending
the deadline until March 1, 2012, in a letter ruling issued on January 5, 2012. On March 20,

2012, the clerk of this court advised appellant in writing that his brief was past due. The clerk

fur ther informed appellant that

, on its own motion, th e court had granted him an extension until
April 9 , 2012 , to file his brief . T he clerk’s letter of March 20 , 2012, further advised appellant

that the failu re to file his brief by April 9, 2012, might resu lt in his appeal being dismissed for2

want of prosecution pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8 and 42. There has been no response to the

clerk’s letter of March 20, 2012 . The failure to timely file appellant’s brief appears to be due to
appellant’s acts and o missions.
Therefore, pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b), the appeal is dismissed for
want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

April 19 , 2012
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.61

                                                              January 16, 2004

Mr. Arthur Becker
Chief Executive Officer
NAVISITE, INC.
400 Minuteman Road
Andover, MA  01810

         Re: Extension of Term

         In connection with that certain Loan and Security Agreement (the
"Agreement"), dated as of January 29, 2003 between Atlantic Investors, LLC
("Lender") and NaviSite, Inc. ("Borrower"), this letter serves to notify
Borrower that any and all Credit Advances under the Agreement made prior to, or
following the date of this letter shall be due on or before the earlier of (i)
August 1, 2004 or (ii) five (5) business days following the closing of a
financing transaction or disposition pursuant to which the Borrower receives
gross proceeds of $13 million.

         If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

                                               Sincerely yours,

                                               ATLANTIC INVESTORS, LLC

                                               By:  Unicorn Worldwide Holdings
                                                 Limited, a managing member

                                               By: /s/ Simon H. Cooper
                                               Name: Simon H. Cooper
                                               Title:  Director
Jose BERRUM, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9597

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Arthur STANLEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8415.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., et al., Petitioners, v. UPSTATE FOREVER, et al.

No. 18-268.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of *County of Maui* v. *Hawaii Wildlife Fund* , 590 U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 1462, 206 L.Ed.2d 640 (2020).
THRYV, INC., fka Dex Media, Inc., Petitioner v. CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP, et al.

No. 18-916

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Motion of Solicitor General for divided argument granted.
Tyrone Dexter CHRISTIAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5782

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

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

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 

I, Clive Barwin, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Melt Inc. for the
      period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Melt Inc.                                                                 

Dated: May 14, 2009

| | /s/
      Clive Barwin                                         
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Clive Barwin                                                   
| | President, CEO, Chief Financial Officer,
      Secretary and   
| | Director                                                       
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Melt Inc.                                                      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Melt Inc. and
will be retained by Melt Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc. (the  Funds ) consisting of
Smith Barney Investment Grade Bond Fund, Smith Barney Government
Securities Fund, and Smith Barney Peachtree Growth Fund for the
year ended December 31, 2002, we considered their internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Funds and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



                                             KPMG LLP
New York, New York
February 12, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1123 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1123

   To promote consumer choice and wireless competition by permitting 
  consumers to unlock mobile wireless devices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2013

 Mr. Goodlatte (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Coble, Mr. Watt, Mr. Poe 
  of Texas, and Ms. DelBene) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To promote consumer choice and wireless competition by permitting 
  consumers to unlock mobile wireless devices, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Unlocking Consumer Choice and 
Wireless Competition Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXISTING RULE AND ADDITIONAL RULEMAKING BY LIBRARIAN 
              OF CONGRESS.

    (a) Repeal and Replace.--Paragraph (3) of section 201.40(b) of 
title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, as amended and revised by the 
Librarian of Congress on October 28, 2012, pursuant to his authority 
under section 1201(a) of title 17, United States Code, shall have no 
force and effect, and such paragraph shall read, and shall be in 
effect, as such paragraph was in effect on July 27, 2010.
    (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the 
Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary 
for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and 
report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, 
shall determine, consistent with the requirements set forth under 
section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code, whether to extend 
the exemption for the class of works described in section 201.40(b)(3) 
of title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, as amended by subsection (a), 
to include any other category of wireless devices in addition to 
wireless telephone handsets.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act alters, or shall be 
construed to alter, the authority of the Librarian of Congress under 
section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Re: Sebastian ECCLESTON, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5579 (R46-07)

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 15, 2019

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
XIU JIAN SUN, Petitioner v. WU HUA JING, et al.

No. 19-218

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department denied.