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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4704 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4704

To expand the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 to include combating the 
transfer of permanent custody or control of a minor in contravention of 
          a required legal procedure, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2014

   Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself and Mr. Langevin) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 to include combating the 
transfer of permanent custody or control of a minor in contravention of 
          a required legal procedure, 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. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF CHILD EXPLOITATION.

    Paragraph (1) of section 2 of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 
(42 U.S.C. 17601(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
end the following: ``, or the offer to engage or engaging in the 
transfer of permanent custody or control of a minor in contravention of 
a required legal procedure''.
                                 <all>
```
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## SJI Releases FY 2025 Budget

SJI has just released the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. To read more, download now:

FY 2025 SJI Budget Request

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  FY 2024 2nd Quarter SJI Board Meeting  Read More**   
                  -  Rapid Response Team Releases New Guidance on Implementing AI Technologies  Read More**   
                  -  New Report Shows How Courts Are Improving Hybrid Hearings  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Releases FY 2025 Budget  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28028-28029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12008]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; PAR DE-09-182.
    Date: June 15, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Lynn M. King, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research/NIH, 
6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-6402, 301-594-5006, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb2a7b0b0f0b5b7b0b99eb0b7b6f0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5d9ccdbdb9bdedcdbd2f5dbdcdd9bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 28029]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 13, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-12008 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6494** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. LARRY KENNETH SPEED, a/k/a Kenneth Richard Godfrey, a/k/a Kenny Speed , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:00

- cr - 00092

- RAJ

- 1; 2:13

- cv - 00589

- RAJ )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Larry Kenneth Speed, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Stoker, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry Kenneth Speed seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatabl e, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Speed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines o f law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 3 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JORGE ANTONIO RAMOS-LERMA, No. 04-1301 (D.C. No. 04-CR-54 WM) (D. Colorado) Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges. Defendant Jorge Antonio Ramos-Lerma appeals his sentence after a plea of guilty to the charge of illegal reentry by a previo usly deported alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced at the bottom end of the applicable Guideline range. His sole ground of appeal is that the mandatory Gui deline regime under which he-2-

was sentenced is unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531(2004), and its progeny. Defendant preserved this issue below. In a Rule 28 (j) letter the Government concedes, as it should, that this case is governed by United States v. Labastida-Segura , 396 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2005), and it consents t o remand for resentencing. We REVERSE Defendant’s sentence and REMAND to the d istrict court for resentencing. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12120]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[AC-40: OTS No. H-4708]


FedFirst Financial Corporation, Monessen, PA; Approval of 
Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on May 14, 2010, the Office of Thrift 
Supervision approved the application of FedFirst Financial MHC and 
First Federal Savings Bank, Monessen, Pennsylvania, to convert to the 
stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for 
inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecbc998e80858fc2a5828a83aca3b8bfc2b89e898d9fc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7f7d2c5cbcec489eec9c1c8e7e8f3f489f3d5c2c6d489c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Northeast Regional Office, 
Harborside Financial Center Plaza Five, Suite 1600, Jersey City, New 
Jersey 07311.

    Dated: May 17, 2010.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-12120 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                             CityFed Financial Corp.
              Statement Regarding the Computation of Per Share Loss




                                      Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                           June 30,                 June 30,
                                      ------------------       -----------------
                                      1997         1996        1997         1996
                                      ----         ----        ----         ----
<S>                                 <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>       
 Computation of Loss Per Share:

 Weighted average number of
    shares outstanding              18,714,646   18,714,646   18,714,646   18,714,646

 Loss applicable to  common
    stock:(1)

  From continuing operations       $(2,101,000) $(2,117,000) $(4,190,000) $(4,219,000)
                                   ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========

  From discontinued operations     $         -  $  (200,000) $         -  $(4,150,000)
                                   ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========

  Net loss                         $(2,101,000) $(2,317,000) $(4,190,000) $(8,369,000)
                                   ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========

 Loss per share:

  From continuing operations            $(0.11)      $(0.11)      $(0.22)      $(0.23)
                                        ======       ======       ======       ======

  From discontinued operations          $    -       $(0.01)      $    -       $(0.22)
                                        ======       ======       ======       ======

  Net loss                              $(0.11)      $(0.12)      $(0.22)      $(0.45)
                                        ======       ======       ======       ======
</TABLE>

--------------------- 
(1) Losses  applicable to Common Stock are net of preferred  stock dividends for
the three  months  ended June 30, 1997 and 1996 in the amount of  $2,159,000  in
each  period.  Losses  applicable  to Common  Stock are net of  preferred  stock
dividends  for the six  months  ended  June 30,  1997 and 1996 in the  amount of
$4,318,000 in each period.
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## CCJSCA White Paper Addresses Intermediate Appellate Courts

A recently released white paper from the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal (CCJSCA) titled, *The Role of State Intermediate Appellate Courts: Principles for Adapting to Change*, joins the list of SJI-supported resources available to the state appellate courts (SJI-10-T-152). The paper describes how CCJSCA and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) studied the evolution of the role played by intermediate appellate courts (IACs) and their core functions. The study also examined the impact of the fiscal crisis on the IACs, and how they have adapted to those challenges.

The white paper is available on the SJI website.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
#### The Port Jervis Water Works Company, Respondent, *v.*The Village of Port Jervis, Appellant.

*Municipal corpwation*— water *furnished for public uses*— implied *contract.*

A municipal corporation possessing power to make contracts for a supply of water for public uses may, in the absence of an express contract, be bound by an implied contract to pay the value of water furnished to it for public uses.

*67Appeal by tbe defendant, tbe Village of Port Jervis, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of Orange county on the 18th day of February, 1891, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial by the court at the Orange Special Term.

*Lewis E. Carr,*for the appellant.

*Wm. IF. Onme,*for the respondent.

Dykman, J.:

This action was for the recovery of the value of water furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant for sprinkling the streets of the village, the public fountains, water troughs, jail and hose house, from the 1st of May, 1886, to the 1st of May, 1889.

The case was tried before a judge without a jury, and he rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of the claim. The defendant has appealed from the judgment. The facts are practically undisputed, and the defense to the action proceeds trpon the absence of an agreement, or the want of power to incur the liability, the finality of the action of the auditing board rejecting the claim and the want of funds.

There is no destitution of power in the municipal authority of this defendant to make contracts for a supply of water for public use in the village, and no limitation of such power inside of the public necessities. There was no contract for the water out of which this claim arises, yet it was furnished and the law will justify an implication of a contract for the payment of its value.

Municipal corporations may be bound upon contracts implied from sufficient facts. “ The doctrine of implied municipal liability applies to cases where money or other property of a party is received under such circumstances that the general law, independent of express contract, imposes the obligation upon the city to do justice with respect to the same.” *(Nelson*v. Mayor, 63 N. Y. 544.)

“ That corporations may be bound upon implied contracts made by its agents and to be deduced from corporate acts without a vote of the governing body, is now well settled.” *(Kramrath*v. Albany, 127 N. Y. 581.)

*68To the same effect is Dillon on Municipal Corporations, section 383.

Tlie claim of tlie plaintiff was before the governing body, the defendant, and it was just.

There was sufficient authority in the charter to enable the officers to pay the amount, but they refused to do so, and neglected to put the proper machinery in operation to raise the funds to pay the claim, and, under such circumstances, the law furnishes the creditor with a remedy by action.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurred; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1835 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 15:52:25 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1835 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 15:52:25 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1835 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 15:52:25 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1835 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 15:52:25 Page 4 of

4
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,
Plaintiff

- Appellee
,

v.
EDWARD HENRY LATIMER, III, a/k/a Eddie
,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 4:17

- cr

- 00065

- RAJ

- LRL

- 12 )

Submitted : April 26 , 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Edward Henry Latimer, III , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Edward Henry Latimer, III, appeal s the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of
a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d
326, 329 (4th Cir.), cer t. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons

for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing

amou nt of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Warp 9, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 (the “Report”) I, William E. Beifuss, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18USC §§.1350, as adopted pursuant to §§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.




Date: November 14, 2011
By:
/s/ William E. BeifussWilliam E. Beifuss, Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MIGUEL BONILLA-RIVERA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2946 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 30, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Gilbert Smith, Jr., Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William Stone, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.