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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5570 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5570

   To provide that no funds are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Internal Revenue Service to expand its workforce in order to implement, 
   enforce, or otherwise carry out either the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 
                                of 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2010

  Mr. Upton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that no funds are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Internal Revenue Service to expand its workforce in order to implement, 
   enforce, or otherwise carry out either the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 
                                of 2010.

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

SECTION 1. NO AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.

    No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Internal Revenue 
Service for the purpose of appointing any agent or other employee, or 
procuring by contract the services of any organization or individual, 
in order to implement, enforce, or otherwise carry out any provision 
of, or amendment made by--
            (1) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 
        Law 111-148); or
            (2) the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
        2010 (Public Law 111-152).
                                 <all>
```
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-540 

LT Case No. 2022-CF-004693

_____________________________

JOSHUA TYLER STEPPS, 

Appellant, 

 v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

R. Anthony Salem, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

August 29, 2023 

PER CURIAM. 

 AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., LAMBERT, and PRATT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion 

under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. 

_____________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Mission Resources Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-27707, 333-57827, 333-54798, 333-63562, 333-105169, 333-116404 and
333-120351) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-111955, 333-113971 and 333-119258) on Form
S-3 of Mission Resources Corporation of our reports dated March 7, 2005, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Mission Resources Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and comprehensive
income or loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2004, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form
10-K/A of Mission Resources Corporation.

As discussed in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, effective
January 1, 2003, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations. As discussed in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements,
effective January 1, 2002, the Company adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.

KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
April 11, 2005
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5655 

To designate the Little River Branch facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 140 NE 84th Street in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Jesse 

J. McCrary, Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2010 

Mr. MEEK of Florida (for himself, Mr. BOYD, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. BUCHANAN, Ms. CASTOR

of Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. GRAYSON, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Ms. KOSMAS, Mr. MACK, Mr. MICA, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. ROONEY, Ms. ROSLEHTINEN, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the Little River Branch facility of the United 

States Postal Service located at 140 NE 84th Street 

in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JESSE J. MCCRARY, JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Little River Branch facility 

5 of the United States Postal Service located at 140 NE 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5655 IH

1 84th Street in Miami, Florida, shall be known and des2 ignated as the ‘‘Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jesse J. McCrary, 

7 Jr. Post Office’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS OR SAN
JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND THE RELATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME AND CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS FOR THE
TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,111,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,111,832
<PP&E>                                     133,275,528
<DEPRECIATION>                              77,156,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,231,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,111,832
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,119,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,231,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,596,882
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               947,952
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             48,648,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         48,648,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                48,648,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### BULAH RICE and wife, ELIZABETH RICE v. EDNEY RICE and wife, FUSHIA RICE, and MARGARET RICE.

(Filed 27 March 1963.)

1. Appeal and Error § 19—

Exceptions which appear nowhere in the record except tinder the purported assignments of error are ineffectual.

2. Boundaries § 7—

Where there is a *dona fide*dispute as to the boundary between the lands of plaintiffs and the lands of defendants, nonsuit is inapposite.

Appeal by defendants from *Campbell, J.,*Regular October Term 1962 of Madison.

*172This is a processioning proceeding instituted for the purpose of establishing the true boundary line between the adjoining lands of the plaintiffs and the defendants.

The plaintiffs and the defendants introduced voluminous evidence.

The jury found the true and correct boundary line between the lands of plaintiffs and the lands of defendants to be the line from A to B as shown on the official court map, prepared by James W. Moore, Registered Land Surveyor, and dated 27 October 1962.

Judgment was entered on the verdict. The defendants appeal, assigning error.

*A. E. Leake for plaintiff appellees.*

*Clyde M. Roberts for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The appellants undertake to set out five assignments of error based on a like number of exceptions. However, the exceptions appear nowhere in the record except under the purported assignments of error. Such exceptions are feckless and will not be considered on appeal. *Holden v. Holden,*245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118.

Furthermore, if exceptions to the failure of the court to nonsuit the plaintiffs at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence, had been properly entered and assigned, they would have been without merit.

This Court has repeatedly held that when it is made to appear that there is a bona fide dispute between landowners as to the true location of the boundary line between adjoining tracts of land, the cause may not be dismissed as in case of nonsuit. *Cornelison v. Hammond,*225 N.C. 535, 35 S.E. 2d 633; *Plemmons v. Cutshall,*230 N.C. 595, 55 S.E. 2d 74; *Brown v. Hodges,*230 N.C. 746, 55 S.E. 2d 498; *Welborn v. Lumber Co.,*238 N.C. 238, 77 S.E. 2d 612.

In the trial 'below, we find

No error
## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________



### m 00-60424 Summary Calendar

_______________



### D ONALD 

### I. C OOLEY 

### ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### M ISSISSIPPI 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### T RANSPORTATION 

### , Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:99-CV-799)

_________________________ April 26, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The parties agree t hat the sole issue is wh et her the Americans with Disabilities Act contains a valid congressional abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunit y. The dist rict court held that there is no abrogation. The Supreme Co urt has now so hel d. B oard of Trustees of Un iv. of Ala. , 121 S. Ct. 955 (2001).

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuan t to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited c ircumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,310
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,712
<INVENTORY>                                     31,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,853
<PP&E>                                          25,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,912
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,586
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,809
<SALES>                                         37,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,071
<CGS>                                           27,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    32
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,443
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,446
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,446
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Unified Grocers Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Martin, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge that:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
the Report.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:     December 11, 2008



/S/ RICHARD J.
MARTIN Richard J. MartinExecutive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer (Principal financial and accounting officer)




A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Louis DiNardo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Xicor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 29, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly
represents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Xicor, Inc.

                                   By: /s/ Louis DiNardo
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                   Name: Louis DiNardo
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

I, Geraldine N. Hench, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Xicor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 29, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly
represents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Xicor, Inc.

                              By: /s/ Geraldine N. Hench
                                  ---------------------------------------
                              Name: Geraldine N. Hench
                              Title: Vice President, Finance and
                                     Administration and Chief Financial Officer
#### Elvin Fred MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70793.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

*885Elvin Fred Martinez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., John L. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suit*885able for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Elvin Fred Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Martinez failed to file his application for asylum within one year of his arrival in the United States, *see 8*U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (a)(3); *Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001), and that extraordinary circumstances excused the late filing, *see Molina-Estrada v. INS*293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002).

We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that Martinez failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Hakeem,*273 F.3d at 816. Martinez admitted that he is aware the guerilla groups he feared when he left El Salvador in the 1980’s are no longer a threat to society and now he fears only *886criminal gang activity. Because general unrest is not a basis for withholding of removal, and Martinez failed to offer any evidence that he would be targeted on a protected ground, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Mendez-Efrain v. INS,*813 F.2d 279, 282 (9th Cir.1987) (absent specific evidence, applicant’s belief that he would be subject to persecution in El Salvador due to general unrest was insufficient to sustain burden).

Martinez also failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief because he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); *Singh v. Ashcroft,*351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Kevin LEWIS, a/k/a Kevin Lucas, Petitioner, v. Hans J. WALKER, Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility, and Hon. Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondents.

No. 90 Civ. 2188 (RPP).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 20, 1991.

Kevin Lewis, pro se.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., Dept, of Law, New York City, for respondents.

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.

This Court, having reviewed and accepted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Francis dated December 19, 1990; having denied the petition for habeas corpus by Order dated January 15, 1991 and filed January 16, 1991; having reviewed the petitioner’s motion for reargument filed January 29, 1991 and having denied said motion on February 22, 1991, denies petitioner’s request for a certificate of probable cause for appeal pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

*945Petitioner was convicted on May 9, 1986 in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39(1), two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16(1), and criminal possession of controlled substances in the fourth degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 220.09(1). His conviction was unanimously affirmed, without opinion, by the Appellate Division, First Department, on April 6, 1989. 149 A.D.2d 990, 540 N.Y.S.2d 119. Leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied.

Petitioner’s enumerated claims for relief are substantially the same issues raised in his appeal to the Appellate Division. Petitioner’s claims of insufficient evidence to sustain conviction, impermissible bolstering of identification evidence by the purchaser, an undercover policewoman, improper identification procedures, inadequate evidence to show the substances on question were cocaine and heroin, ineffective representation at trial, impermissible prosecutorial summation and improper jury charge were dealt with at length in Magistrate Francis' Report and Recommendation and demonstrated to be unmeritorious. In view of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that no certificate of probable cause should issue. The Petitioner, having demonstrated an inability to pay fees and costs or to give security therefor, having evidenced a belief in his entitlement to redress and having stated the issues which he intends to present on appeal, his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 16, 2019.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 16, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0205. MARQUISE ALI ROBBINS v. THOMAS A. COX, JR., JUDGE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2019CV329186