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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4702 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4702

  To extend until 2030 the time period required to be covered by the 
                United States Space Protection Strategy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Select Committee on 
   Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until 2030 the time period required to be covered by the 
                United States Space Protection Strategy.

    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 ``Space Protection Strategy Extension 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD TO BE COVERED BY THE SPACE PROTECTION 
              STRATEGY.

    Section 911(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 2271 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Fiscal years 2026 through 2030.''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3020

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the District 

* of Minnesota.

Terrence Williams, also known as Rico, *

also known as Terron Darrel Williams, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 11, 2003

 Filed: April 14, 2003 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, R. ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-Appellant Terrance Williams pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute

cocaine and crack cocaine. Based on the drug quantity, William's role in the

conspiracy, his acceptance of responsibility, and his criminal history, he was assessed

a total offense level of 39 and a criminal history of category VI. The applicable
1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

2

guideline range was therefore 360 months to life imprisonment. The district court1

granted a downward departure for substantial assistance based on the government's

motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and sentenced Williams to 168 months imprisonment.

The district court refused to depart further downward to the 120 month statutory

minimum urged by Williams. On appeal, Williams challenges the district court's

refusal to grant a further departure. 

In general, the extent of a downward departure is not subject to review. United

States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1577 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Goodwin,

72 F.3d 88, 91 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993)

("[W]e may not review the extent of the district court's downward departure,

regardless of the district court's reasons for refraining from departing further."). A

refusal to depart downward may, however, become reviewable if a "defendant

[makes] a 'substantial showing' that the district court's refusal to depart 'was based on

an unconstitutional motive.'" McCarthy, 97 F.3d at 1578 (quoting Wade v. United

States, 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992)). Here, Williams argues that the district court

improperly relied on evidence of his involvement in a crime for which he was not

charged, namely, the murder of four-year-old Davisha Gillum by William's fellow

gang members. Williams does not allege that the district court's refusal to depart

further was the result of an unconstitutional motive. Accordingly, the extent of his

departure remains unreviewable, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
3
The results allow me to conclude

that we have a highly acceptable

and scalable program that showed

promising effects on parent’s

conflict behaviors and children’s

behavioral issues. We are confident

about sharing the program with a

wider audience so that we can

continue to study and improve it.

Karey O’Hara, PhD

Assistant Professor of Psychology

Arizona State University

Scalable, early

intervention for postseparation/divorce

conflict.

Parents reported reduced

parent conflict and child

behavior problems in

pilot testing.

Ready for larger scale

evaluation and

refinement.

FIT FINDINGS

...AT A GLANCE

The Families in

Transition Program (FIT)

PILOT STUDY RESULTS

Total Participants: 264 (214 completed surveys).

Distribution: 56% took PCR, 44% took FIT.

Gender: 51% women, 34% men, 1% other/not disclosed.

Marital History: 43% never married to the child’s other

parent, 43% previously married, 14% did not disclose.

S A M P L E D E T A I L S

FIT: 90 minute, online program

PCR: 4 hour, in person program

Comparison of two court-ordered parent education

programs for high-conflict separated/divorcing parents.

O B J E C T I V E S

Both FIT and PCR offer valuable content with no

significant difference in user perception.

Both FIT and PCR rated as “Good” or “Great.”

Programs found moderately to very helpful.

FIT online program highly usable; no extra support

needed.

The majority of parents favor online programs.

lower parent conflict*

lower child behavior problems*

As compared to before the program...

Parent Experience

Change in Parent & Child Behavior

F I N D I N G S

Change in Parent & Child Emotional Reactions

no change in parent emotion regulation problems

no change in child depression/anxiety problems

As compared to before the program...

* FIT demonstrated reductions in parent conflict and child behavior problems with a 95% confidence, meaning there's a low likelihood we would see

reductions of this size by random chance. But, because there was no statistical difference in the reduction between FIT versus PCR, we cannot solely

credit these improvements to FIT. Unknown external factors, such as the passage of time or changes in family stress level, might have contributed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11
                         COMMERCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Three Months Ended
                                                                      September 30,
                                                               -------------------------
                                                                  1998           1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>           <C>        
COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER BASIC AND DILUTED SHARES:
---------------------------------------------------

Net income                                                     $15,122,794   $25,955,000
                                                               ===========    ==========

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

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
-------------------------

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding used in basic earnings per share calculation      58,605,879    55,247,359
                                                               ===========    ==========

Net income                                                     $       .26   $       .47
                                                               ===========    ==========

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

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
---------------------------

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding used in basic earnings per share calculation      58,605,879    55,247,359
Add assumed exercise of outstanding stock options
  as adjustments for dilutive securities                           842,023     1,309,216
                                                               -----------    ----------

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding used in diluted earnings per share calculation    59,447,902    56,556,575
                                                               ===========    ==========

Net income                                                     $       .25   $       .46
                                                               ===========    ==========

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Grant, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 7, 1987

*See, People v Grant,*126 Misc 2d 18.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Philip L. Weinstein*and *Howard Grun*for appellant. *Mario Merola, District Attorney (Peter D. Coddington*and *Marianne Karas*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction rendered March 26, 1985 is affirmed.

Sandifer, J. P., Parness and Ostrau, JJ., concur.
#### Louis Goldberg, by Next Friend, etc., v. Max Schrayer.

*Master and Servant—Negligence of Master—Personal Injury—Promise to Replace or Repair—Pleading.*

*1.*For defects in the declaration in a given ease, of which no notice was taken upon trial, and which would have been amendable if objected to, *317the jury should not be directed to find for the defendant, and he can not herein for the first time rely upon such defects to justify such direction.

2. The question of care or negligence under testimony going to show that a servant continued to work at a machine after complaining of its dangerous condition, upon his master’s promise to repair or replace the same, is for the jury.

3. Such question does not become one of law, because of testimony of former similar promises of defendant not performed.

[Opinion filed November 11, 1890.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of .Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding.

Mr. B. M. Shaffner, for appellant.

Mr. John C. King, for appellee.

Gary, J.

As this case is to be returned to the Superior Court for trial by another jury, no more comment upon the evidence will be made than is absolutely necessary to show why it is done.

As to the declaration, it is enough to say that for defects in it, of which no notice was taken at the trial, and xvhich xvere amendable if objected to, the jury should not have been directed to find for the defendant, and therefore the appellee can not here, for the first time, rely upon such defects to justify that direction. Such defects might have been cured by amendment, even after verdict. Order of Mutual Aid v. Paine, 122 Ill. 625; McCollom v. Ind. *&*St. L. R. R., 94 Ill. 534; Schirmeier v. Baecker, 20 Ill. App. 373.

The testimony tended to prove that the appellant, when nineteen years of age, was injured by reason of a machine with which he was xvorking for the appellee, being defective; that some two hours before his injury he called the attention of the appellee to the defect, who told the appellant to finish up the job he was at work upon, and then the appellee would get a new machine, or fix that one; that under that order and promise the appellant continued to work xvith the machine until he was hurt. Under that testimony, the questions of care or negligence of the parties respectively, xvere for the jury. Missouri Furnace Co. v. Abend, 107 Ill. 44.

*318Nor did the question as to the care or negligence of the appellant become one of law because of testimony of former similar promises of the appellee, not performed. Whether the appellant was excusable in relying upon the last promise in the definite form which was testified to, was for the jury.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TIFFANY M. WASHINGTON,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent

______________________

2017-2072

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-15-0572-I-1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

SCOTT W. HUNTER, Scott W. Hunter, LLC, Fairhope, 

AL, argued for petitioner. Also represented by EDWARD 

SMITH, Mobile, AL. 

 ADAM E. LYONS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued 

for respondent. Also represented by REGINALD THOMAS 

BLADES, JR., JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

 ______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

September 3, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               5,610
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                           280
<INVENTORY>                                            565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    10,508
<PP&E>                                               1,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                         604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      25,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                6,840
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               137
<OTHER-SE>                                          17,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        25,731
<SALES>                                             11,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    12,779
<CGS>                                                1,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7,468
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,064
<INCOME-TAX>                                           257
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,807
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.14
        


</TABLE>
- 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

#### 					ANNOUNCEMENT				

## Upcoming Symposium! The National Interdisciplinary Cannabis Symposium

**#UpcomingSymposium** Funded by State Justice Institute, the National Interdisciplinary Cannabis Symposium will be held September 27th-29th, 2024, in New York, NY.

For more details and pre-registration information, please visit: https://www.nationalinterdisciplinarycannabissymposium.com/

### 

                    - National-Interdisciplinary-Cannabis-Symposium-2024  (507 kB)

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Judicial College  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Second Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges  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.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
ACTIONS OF THE JULY 11, 2018, MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the full Board of Regents pursuant to Board 

Bylaw 3.01, reappoints Robert D. MacDonald as Chair of the Smithsonian National Board for a 

one-year term, effective October 1, 2018.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 29, 2017. 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, March 29, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0354. SHELTON LEE v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 02CR0448
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L ORNA M. R E S UL T AY , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 72894 A ge nc yN o. A 071- 782- 793 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t8, 2012 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , B E R Z O N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ornaM . R e s ul t ay , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of the P hi l i ppi ne s , pe t i t i ons f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n de port a t i on p r o c e e d in g s c o n du c te din ab s e n tia . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 

# FI LED AU G 13 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 72894 2 W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, a nd r e vi e w de n o v o q u e s tio n s o f

law . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 40 0 F . 3d 78 5, 79 1-92 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng R es ul t ay ’ s m ot i on t o reopen on the grou nd thatshe f ai l ed t o est abl i sh re as on abl e c ause for herabse nce a ther depo rt at i on hear i ng w here the re cord show s the ca l endar w as se ti n h erpres ence and she do es no tdi sput e thatbo th she and h ercoun se l w er e per sonal l y s erved n o tic e o f th e h e ar in g . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b ) (1 9 9 1 ) (rep eal ed ) (p et i t i o n er m u st e s tab lis h “r e a s o n ab le c au s e ” f o rf a ilu r e to ap p e ar ) ; H

e rn a n dez - V

iv a s v . I N S , 23 F . 3d 15 57 , 15 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 94 ) ( no re as on abl e c ause for absence w here pet i t i on erw as aw ar e new hear i ng dat e w as sc hedu l ed bu tfa i l ed t o app ear) . R es ul t ay ’ s c on t ent i on thatthe IJshou l d h ave c on strued her m ot i on t o reopen m o r e p e rm is s iv e lyis u n p e r s u a s iv e . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Zomax Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the year ended December 27, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John Gelp, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Dated:March 27, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/  John Gelp           |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | John  Gelp               |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 29996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13064]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date:  Wednesday, June 2, 2010; 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

Place:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status:  Closed to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: May 25, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13064 Filed 5-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P