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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5185 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5185

To make supplemental appropriations for the Cops in Schools program for 
                           fiscal year 2018.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2018

 Mr. Meadows introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make supplemental appropriations for the Cops in Schools program for 
                           fiscal year 2018.

    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 ``Protect America's Schools Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE COPS IN SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

    The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fiscal year 2018:

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                       Office of Justice Programs

                  community oriented policing services

    For an additional amount for ``Community Oriented Policing 
Services'', as authorized by section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd), for school resource 
officers, $1,500,000,000.

SEC. 3. RESCISSION.

    Of the unobligated balances available for ``Department of 
Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Operations, 
Research, and Facilities'', $1,500,000,000 is rescinded.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2011007EN.01000501.xml

| 12.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5865 — Teva/Ratiopharm)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 7/02

On 3 August 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5865. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5865. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr46-SPM

CHRISTY JEAN BAILOR,

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Count One of this indictment. The

district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing Defendant's proposed

change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a report and recommendation

as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties consented to this procedure, and

the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the
Page 2 of 3

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr46-SPM
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 13, 2010. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr46-SPM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                        27,889
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 400,441
<ALLOWANCES>                  14,628
<INVENTORY>                   303,217
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              763,965
<PP&E>                        1,021,752
<DEPRECIATION>                530,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,455,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         497,651
<BONDS>                       247,388
<COMMON>                      140,830
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    398,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,455,283
<SALES>                       547,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              547,055
<CGS>                         402,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 402,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            6,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>               45,873
<INCOME-TAX>                  14,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           31,173
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  31,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                 1.10
        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Transcrypt International, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-30673) on Form S-8 of Transcrypt International, Inc. (the "Company") of our
report dated June 26, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of the
Company and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholder's equity and cash
flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of the Company dated July 28, 1998.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
July 28, 1998
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

VINCENT L SMITH,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00230-MP -GRJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 12, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the petition be dismissed. The time for filing objections

has passed, and none have been filed. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner should have brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than § 2241 because he

does not meet any of the requirements of the savings clause. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. This petition is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of April, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
# C_2010149EN.01000102.xml

| 8.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5807 — ENI/Fox Energy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 149/02

On 2 June 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5807. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5807. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAWRENCE S. WICK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cv358/MCR/EMT

CITIGROUP, INC., et al.

Defendants.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated May 29, 2018 (ECF No. 317). The parties have been

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). The Court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections

filed by Plaintiff, ECF No. 319, and the response in opposition to Plaintiff’s

objection, filed by Defendants Diana N. Athanasopoulos and Pierce & Associates,

P.C., ECF No. 320.1

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and all objections and

responses, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be

The Court notes that on June 6, 2018, Plaintiff voluntarilydismissed Defendants Citigroup, 1

Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Bank of America Corp.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; and

Merscorp., Inc. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). ECF No. 318.
Page 2 of 2

adopted. The objections are overruled. The Court finds that the Chief Magistrate

Judge correctly recited the background and applicable standard ofreview, adequately

explained why renewal of the motionsto dismiss was appropriate, and considered the

relevant law. The Court finds no error of law and finds the objections are without

merit also for the reasons stated in the response in opposition to the Plaintiff’s

objections, ECF No. 320.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this Order as to Defendants Pierce & Associates,

P.C., and Diana N., Athanasopoulos. All other remaining Defendants have been

dismissed by Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal and operation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i),

ECF No. 318.

2. Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss(ECF No. 291)is GRANTED.

3. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. Judgment shall be entered accordingly and this case closed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of June 2018.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:10cv358/MCR/EMT
# C_2011096EN.01000401.xml

| 29.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5960 — Credit Agricole/Cassa di Risparmio Della Spezia/Agences Intesa Sanpaolo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 96/02

On 10 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5960. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5960. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Kenneth Eade, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Film Development Corporation.



(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

|Dated: May 23, 2011 | /s/ Kenneth Eade
Kenneth Eade
CFO and Director
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------
#### STATE v. BYRD

No. 137 PC.

Case below: 50 N.C. App. 736.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 July 1981.
#### STEED v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK

No. 513P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 189.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1982.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00132-CR

JACKIE RUSSELL KEETER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Hamilton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR06361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jackie Russell Keeter appeals from the trial court’s order denying his 

“Motion Nunc Pro Tunc.” 

An order denying a motion nunc pro tunc is not appealable. See Sanchez v. State, 

112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); see also Castor v. State, 205 

S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). The appropriate remedy for the denial 
Keeter v. State Page 2

of a motion nunc pro tunc is to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals. 

Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 

147, 148-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.R. APP. P. 43.2(f).

Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Keeter may file a motion for 

rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered if 

he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate information 

or documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Keeter desires to have the opinion 

and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that 

petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the 

day this Court’s judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is 

overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 6, 2020

Do not publish

[CRPM]
# C_2011019EN.01000501.xml

| 20.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/5

---

Public holidays in 2011: EEA EFTA States and EEA institutions

2011/C 19/06

| 2011 | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway | EFTA Surveillance Authority | EFTA Court |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3 January | | | | X | |
| 6 January | | X | | | |
| 2 February | | X | | | |
| 7 March | | | | | X |
| 8 March | | X | | | |
| 21 April | X | | X | | X |
| 22 April | X | X | X | X | X |
| 25 April | X | X | X | X | X |
| 17 May | | | X | | |
| 2 June | X | X | X | X | X |
| 3 June | | X | | X | X |
| 13 June | X | X | X | X | X |
| 17 June | X | | | | |
| 23 June | | X | | | X |
| 24 June | | X | | | |
| 1 August | X | | | | |
| 15 August | | X | | | X |
| 5 September | | | | | X |
| 8 September | | X | | | |
| 9 September | | X | | | |
| 1 November | | X | | X | X |
| 2 November | | | | | X |
| 8 December | | X | | | |
| 23 December | | | | X | X |
| 26 December | X | X | X | X | X |
| 27 December | | | | X | X |
| 28 December | | | | X | X |
| 29 December | | | | X | X |
| 30 December | | | | X | X |

2011

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

EFTA Surveillance Authority

EFTA Court

3 January

X

6 January

X

2 February

X

7 March

X

8 March

X

21 April

X

X

X

22 April

X

X

X

X

X

25 April

X

X

X

X

X

17 May

X

2 June

X

X

X

X

X

3 June

X

X

X

13 June

X

X

X

X

X

17 June

X

23 June

X

X

24 June

X

1 August

X

15 August

X

X

5 September

X

8 September

X

9 September

X

1 November

X

X

X

2 November

X

8 December

X

23 December

X

X

26 December

X

X

X

X

X

27 December

X

X

28 December

X

X

29 December

X

X

30 December

X

X

---
Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLCCPAs and Business
Advisors
 Phone
(248) 203-0080
 Fax (248)
281-0940
 30600
Telegraph Road, Suite 2175
 Bingham
Farms, MI 48025-4586
 www.maddoxungar.com





November
11, 2009





To the
Board of Directors of


Ivany
Mining, Inc.


St.
Leonard, Quebec, Canada





To Whom
It May Concern:








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLC, hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K, Annual
Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, filed by
Ivany Mining, Inc. of our report dated November 11, 2009, relating to the
financial statements of Ivany Mining, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as of and
for the years ending June 30, 2009 and 2008 and for the period from inception to
June 30, 2009.





Sincerely,





/s/ Maddox Ungar
Silberstein, PLLC





Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLC