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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4025 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to reauthorize and amend the Fishing 

Safety Training Grant Program and the Fishing Safety Research Grant 

Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2014 

Mr. KEATING (for himself and Mr. TIERNEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to reauthorize and 

amend the Fishing Safety Training Grant Program and 

the Fishing Safety Research Grant Program, 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 ‘‘Fishing Safety Train5 ing and Research Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4025 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF FISHING 

2 SAFETY TRAINING GRANT PROGRAM AND 

3 FISHING SAFETY RESEARCH GRANT PRO4 GRAM. 

5 (a) FISHING SAFETY TRAINING GRANT PROGRAM.— 

6 Section 4502(i) of title 46, United States Code, is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para9 graph (6); 

10 (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(4)(A) The Secretary shall establish a publicly ac13 cessible electronic database that lists the names of individ14 uals who have participated in training sessions carried out 

15 with assistance under this subsection. 

16 ‘‘(B) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of 

17 including the name of an individual in such database for 

18 any period longer than 18 months, that the individual 

19 complete retraining. 

20 ‘‘(5) The Secretary shall require that training carried 

21 out with a grant under this section shall be made available 

22 in languages other than English, as appropriate for the 

23 fishing port in which the training is offered.’’; and 

24 (3) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by 

25 striking ‘‘2010 through 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2015 

26 through 2025’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4025 IH

1 (b) FISHING SAFETY RESEARCH GRANT PRO2 GRAM.—Section 4502(j)(4) of title 46, United States 

3 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘2010 through 2014’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘2015 through 2025’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the Integ Incorporated 1990 Incentive and Stock Option Plan,
1991 Incentive and Stock Option Plan, 1994 Long-Term Incentive and Stock Option
Plan and 1996 Directors' Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 14,
1997, with respect to the financial statements of Integ Incorporated for the
three years ended December 31, 1996, included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.      


                       /s/   Ernst & Young LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
    
April 10, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4332 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4332

    To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the dollar 
 limitation on the de minimis safe harbor from treatment as a capital 
   expenditure for taxpayers without applicable financial statements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2014

  Mr. Gardner (for himself, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Long, and Mr. 
   Coffman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the dollar 
 limitation on the de minimis safe harbor from treatment as a capital 
   expenditure for taxpayers without applicable financial statements.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON DE MINIMIS SAFE HARBOR FROM 
              TREATMENT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR TAXPAYERS WITHOUT 
              APPLICABLE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
Secretary's designee) shall modify Treasury Regulation section 
1.263(a)-1(f)(1)(ii)(D) to increase the $500 limitation contained 
therein with respect to the de minimis safe harbor for taxpayers 
without applicable financial statements to $1,000.
    (b) Effective Date.--The revised regulations under this section 
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning 
after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 10728 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Tracy Dylan Cain,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21
- CR
- 86 - 1

**______________________ ________**  Before **Davis, Smith,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Tracy Dylan Cain has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cain has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the rele vant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 5, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10728 Document: 00516775588 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023No. 22
- 10728

2 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further respon sibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-10728 Document: 00516775588 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5967

GARY SCOTT WARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-95-216)

Submitted: August 27, 1996

Decided: September 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Christopher C. Finch, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, John David Kuchta, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gary Scott Ward appeals the 120-month sentence he received after

he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack

cocaine. 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1996). He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred in finding that his two

criminal history points made him ineligible for a sentence below the

mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to USSG § 5C1.2* even

though the court departed from criminal history category II to category I. We affirm.

To be eligible for a sentence under the safety valve provision, a

defendant must not "have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(f)(1);

USSG § 5C1.2(1). Application Note 1 to section 5C1.2 states that the

phrase "as determined under the sentencing guidelines," means "as

determined under § 4A1.1 (Criminal History Category)." After

reviewing the commentary, the district court decided that USSG

§ 5C1.2 did not apply to Ward because he had been assigned two

criminal history points under USSG § 4A1.1, despite the subsequent

departure to category I, which by definition includes defendants with

zero or one criminal history points. The Second Circuit came to the

same conclusion in United States v. Resto, 74 F.3d 22, 27-28 (2d Cir.

1996).

Ward argues that Resto is not dispositive, and that the result

reached by the district court is unfair because the safety valve provision was intended to soften the effect of mandatory minimum sentences. However, we are persuaded that the district court and the

Second Circuit correctly interpreted the guideline.

The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore affirmed.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

_________________________________________________________________

*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.

1995).

 2
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3
In the MATTER OF: D.L.M.

No. COA16-1188

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit
      32.2







CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Kenneth W. Bean, 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 Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
      ended December 31, 2006 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc.





By:/s/
      Kenneth W. Bean


Kenneth
      W. Bean


Principal
      Financial Officer





February
      20, 2007
STATE of North Carolina v. Travis Rashad MITCHELL, Defendant.

No. COA17-369

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 October 21, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10143

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-02133-CV-T-17-TBM

DAVID ARMANDO BUTLER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

BILL MCCOLLUM, Attorney

General of the State of Florida,

Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(October 21, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

David Armando Butler, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals

the district court’s denial of his pro se habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. We granted Butler’s application for a certificate of appealability

(“COA”) for the following issue:

Whether, in light of Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir.

1992) (en banc), the district court failed to address Butler’s claim that

the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in the form of an

officer’s report that Butler had confessed, in violation of Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1197, 10 L.Ed.2d 215

(1963).

The scope of our review is limited to this issue. See Murray v. United States, 145

F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998) (addressing a § 2255 motion).

In Clisby, out of “deep concern over the piecemeal litigation of federal

habeas petitions filed by state prisoners,” we exercised our supervisory authority,

and instructed district courts “to resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for

writ habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, regardless of whether habeas

relief is granted or denied.” 960 F.2d at 935-36. “A claim for relief” is “any

allegation of a constitutional violation.” Id. at 936. “[A]n allegation of one

constitutional violation and an allegation of another constitutional violation

constitute two distinct claims for relief, even if both allegations arise from the same

alleged set of operative facts.” Id. When a district court fails to address all of the

2
claims in a habeas petition, we “vacate the district court’s judgment without

prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims . . . .” Id.

at 938.

In the case at hand, the district court apparently overlooked our ruling in

Clisby by failing to address all of the claims asserted in Butler’s § 2254 petition.

The record reveals, and the state concedes, that the district court failed to resolve

Butler’s claim that the prosecution violated Brady by withholding a police report

stating that Butler had confessed.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 

3
**Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 – Tegebauer v Parliament**

**(Case T-308/07)**

Right to petition – Petition addressed to the Parliament – Decision to take no action – Action for annulment – Actionable measure – Admissibility – Obligation to state reasons

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application
is based – Reference to the annex in support of arguments set out in the pleadings – Admissibility (Statute of the Court of
Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision of the Committee
on Petitions of the Parliament to take no action on a petition – Included (Arts 194 EC and 230EC) (see para. 21)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament
to take no action on a petition (Art. 194 EC; European Parliament Regulation, Art. 191(6)) (see paras 23-30)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by Mr Ingo-Jens Tegebauer on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Tegebauer. |
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0514. DEBRA J. WALLACE v. DIANE WALLACE EPSTEIN et al.

On August 5, 2019, the trial court entered an order granting the defendants,

Diana Epstein and Donna Chambers, attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a) and (b)

to be paid by the plaintiff, Debra Wallace. In the order, the trial court reserved ruling

on the amount of fees until after an evidentiary hearing. Wallace filed an application

for interlocutory appeal from that order, which this Court denied. See Case No.

A20I0028 (decided Sept. 20, 2019). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court

awarded the defendants $28,824 in attorney fees. Wallace then filed this direct

appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Appeals from orders granting or denying attorney fees and litigation expenses

under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be made by discretionary application, not direct appeal. 

See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10). Wallace’s failure to comply with the discretionary

review procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. See Capricorn Systems

v. Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App. 840, 841 (560 SE2d 730) (2002); Jones v. Padgett, 186

Ga. App. 362, 363 (2) (367 SE2d 88) (1988). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 16, 2020

11/16/2020
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries of PSS World Medical, Inc.



|                                              |  |                    |  |                                                 
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Name of Domestic Subsidiary                   |  | State of Formation |  | (Names under which Subsidiary conducts business)
|Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc.               |  | Delaware           |  |                                                 
|Physician Sales & Service, Inc.               |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|Physician Sales & Service Limited Partnership |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|PSS Holding, Inc.                             |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|PSS Service, Inc.                             |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|ThriftyMed, Inc.                              |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|WorldMed Shared Services, Inc.                |  | Florida            |  | PSS World Medical Shared Services, Inc.         
|                                              |  |                    |  | Gulf South Medical Shared Services, Inc.        
|Proclaim, Inc.                                |  | Tennessee          |  |                                                 
|Ancillary Management Solutions, Inc.          |  | Tennessee          |  |                                                 
|Activus Healthcare Solutions, Inc.            |  | Delaware           |  |
----

Removal from the Register of Case T-305/99 (1)

(2004/C 300/106)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 5 October 2004, the President of the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-305/99, OK Nederland B.V., supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

----

(1)OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.

----
# Official Journal L 81/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 81 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 659 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 81

English edition

Legislation

Volume 659 March 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) 2022/394 of 9 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/395 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine | 8 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EU) 2022/394 of 9 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/395 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

8

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
STATE of North Carolina v. Clancy Ray LOCKLEAR

No. COA17-310

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 5, 2017

DISMISSED.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Eternal Energy Corp. on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bradley
M. Colby, President and 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 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.





August
13, 2010





/s/ Bradley M. ColbyBradley
      M. Colby,President
      and Chief Executive Officer





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 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.