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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5062 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5062

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to specify that 
     privilege is maintained when information is shared by certain 
    nondepository covered persons with Federal and State financial 
                  regulators, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2014

  Mr. Perlmutter (for himself and Mr. Barr) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to specify that 
     privilege is maintained when information is shared by certain 
    nondepository covered persons with Federal and State financial 
                  regulators, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Examination and Supervisory 
Privilege Parity Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PRIVILEGE OF INFORMATION SHARED BY CERTAIN NONDEPOSITORY 
              COVERED PERSONS.

    Section 1024(b)(3) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
(12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(3)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``regulators and the State bank regulatory 
        authorities'' and inserting ``regulators, the State bank 
        regulatory authorities, and the State agencies that licence, 
        supervise, or examine the offering of consumer financial 
        products or services''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The sharing of 
        information with such regulators, authorities, and agencies 
        shall not be construed as waiving, destroying, or otherwise 
        affecting any privilege such person may claim with respect to 
        such information under Federal or State law as to any person or 
        entity other than such Bureau, agency, supervisor, or 
        authority.''.
                                 <all>
```
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 5 -00 531 -CV Te xa s W or ke r s’ Co m pe nsa ti on C om m iss ion , A ppe lla nt v. Lumber m ens Mutual Casual ty Com pany , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN40402 6 , HO NORAB LE SUZ ANNE COVINGTO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt T e xas Wo rk e rs ’ C omp e ns atio n Co mmi ssi on ha s f ile d a motio n to dis mis s its appeal , informingthe Court that no controve rsy rema ins betwee n the par ties. We gr ant the motion and dismi ss the appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Puryear and Waldrop Dismissed Filed: April 7, 2009
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4836 

To prohibit the transfer of unprivileged enemy belligerents to the United 

States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2014 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself and Mr. WOLF) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the transfer of unprivileged enemy belligerents 

to the United States, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF 

4 UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS TO 

5 THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.—No unprivileged enemy bellig7 erent who is in the custody or under the effective control 

8 of the Department of Defense or any other Federal entity 

9 may be transferred to or released in the United States. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4836 IH

1 (b) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—A person who transfers 

2 or releases, or assists in the transfer or release, of an 

3 unprivileged enemy belligerent to or within the United 

4 States shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United 

5 States Code, imprisoned for not more than five years, or 

6 both. 

7 (c) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—For 

8 purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘unprivileged enemy bellig9 erent’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

10 948a(7) of title 10, United States Code, and includes any 

11 individual (other than a member of the Armed Forces) 

12 under detention at United States Naval Station, Guanta13 namo Bay, Cuba, as of the date of the enactment of this 

14 Act. 

15 (d) CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.—This Act 

16 does not apply to any unprivileged enemy belligerent 

17 who— 

18 (1) is a citizen of the United States; and 

19 (2) has engaged in hostilities within the United 

20 States and/or its territories. 

21 (e) TERMINATION.—The provisions of this Act shall 

22 expire on December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALIMAMY BARRIE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr
- 00476

- TSE

- 1 )

Submitted : July 21, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Alimamy Barrie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alimamy Barrie appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2018) motion for a sentence reduction and his motion to vacate the restitution order relating to his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud

. We have
reviewed the reco rd and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Barrie , No. 1:11

- cr
- 00476

- TSE

- 1 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 16, 2020 ; entered Mar. 17, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the
fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March

23 , 2023

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00669

- CR

NELSON RAMIREZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 1573790

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Nelson Ramirez has signed and filed a written request to dismiss
his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2 (a) . Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

We dismiss the appeal . We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate2

of the court immediately. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and P o issant

. Do Not Publish

– Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                 Three months ended                      
                                                              March 31,      March 31,                   
                                                                1997            1996                     
                                                            --------------------------                   
                                                            (in thousands of dollars,                    
                                                            except per share amounts)                    
<S>                                                         <C>              <C>                           
Net income                                                  $10,951            $ 8,810           
                                                                                       
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                25,186             25,050           
                                                                                      
Add dilutive effect of outstanding warrants and                                            
options                                                         497                325           
                                                            --------------------------                           
                                                                                       
Weighted average number of shares and                       
equivalent shares outstanding                                25,683             25,375           
                                                            --------------------------           
Income per share                                            $  0.43            $  0.35           
                                                            ==========================           
</TABLE> 
         

                                       14
<TABLE> <S> <C>
              
<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>             
This schedule contains summary financial information from the Consolidated
Balance  Sheet  at  September  30, 1997  (Unaudited)  and the Consolidated 
Statements  of  Operations  for  the nine  months ended September 30, 1997 
(Unaudited)  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to such 
financial statements.
</LEGEND>               
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                1,519
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,782
<PP&E>                                               38,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                       14,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       27,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,298
<BONDS>                                              21,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                            5,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         27,682
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      5,581
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         2,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                            283
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         11.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         11.25
        

</TABLE>
#### Edmund W. Hathaway, Respondent, v. James P. Graham, Appellant, Impleaded with Charles D. Smith and Others, Respondents.

We think that the obligation imposed upon the plaintiff and the defendant Titcomb^ should be enlarged so as to require them to respond to the partnership. The judgment should be modified in t as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Jenks, P. J., Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-145704) on Form S-8 of CombiMatrix
Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2008, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of CombiMatrix Corporation as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007.

Our
report, dated March 14, 2008, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that CombiMatrix Corporation has a history of incurring net losses and net operating cash flow
deficits. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result
from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/
PETERSON SULLIVAN PLLC

March 19,
2008
Seattle, Washington

---



QuickLinks
#### R. L. HINTON v. ADA V. WHITEHURST et al.

(Filed 27 September, 1939.)

Judgments § 22g—

A defendant is not entitled to attack a judgment on the ground that the various orders of the clerk extending the time for filing complaint were irregular and not in continuous and unbroken sequence when it appears that defendant filed answer after the orders complained of were entered and the cause was tried upon its merits.

*242Appeal by plaintiff from *Carr, J.,*at June Term, 1939, of Pasquo-■TANit.

Affirmed.

Civil action instituted by plaintiff to remove cloud from title to real property caused by the existence of a duly docketed judgment, and to have said judgment canceled of record. In connection therewith plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against sale under execution.

Defendants obtained the judgment in controversy against plaintiff •after pleadings filed and upon a hearing upon the merits. The plaintiff now contends that various orders entered by the clerk extending the time to file complaint were not made in continuous and unbroken sequence from the time of issuance of the summons until the time of the filing of the complaint, but were, in fact, fraudulently made and entered at one .and the same time, *1*May, 1928. The original summons was served 16 February, 1922.

The defendants duly demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was sustained and plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Q. C. Davis, Jr., and George J. Spence for plaintiff, appellant.*

*P. W. McMullan and John H. Hall for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

After the entry of the various orders extending the time to file complaint, the defendants filed answer thereto and the cause was heard and determined upon its merits, resulting in the judgment cited in the complaint. We concur in the opinion of the court below that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The demurrer was properly sustained.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION and 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Chapter 11

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this 

evidence and notice.

Olympus Peak Master Fund LP Owl Creek Investments I, LLC

Name of Transferee Name of Transferor

Phone: 212-373-1189

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Phone: 646-825-7623

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Name and Address where notices and 

payments to transferee should be sent: 

Olympus Peak Master Fund LP

745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1604

New York, New York 10151

Attention: Leah Silverman

Claim No: N/A (Schedule Amount)

Date Filed: N/A

Total Amount of Scheduled Claim: $956,213.00

Transferred Amount of Scheduled Claim: $956,213.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and belief.

By: /s/ Leah Silverman Date: July 15, 2019

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 

U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2971 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 08:30:19 Page 1 of

2
11

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2971 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 08:30:19 Page 2 of

2
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2960-2    Filed: 07/12/19    Entered: 07/12/19 16:28:33    Page 1of 1
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-3492

_____________

MICHELE SCHROLLER 

WILLIAM SCHROLLER,

Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(No. 2-11-cv-07719)

District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly

____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 27, 2014

____________

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge1

(Filed: May 1, 2014 )

____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

 

1 The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 

sitting by designation.
2

Plaintiffs Michelle and William Schroller appeal the District Court’s dismissal of 

their case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. After 

exhausting their administrative remedies, the Schrollers brought this case against the 

United States and the Valley Forge National Park relying for jurisdiction on the Federal 

Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. The Schrollers allege they suffered 

damages when, on October 7, 2009, a tree in the Park suddenly and without warning fell 

on Michele Schroller as she was walking, hitting her and pushing her to the ground. See

Schroller v. United States, 2013 WL 3878690, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2013). Schroller 

suffered a closed head injury with post-concussive syndrome, a fractured skull, a scalp 

laceration resulting in scarring and disfigurement, fractured teeth, an acute tear of the 

right rotator cuff, post traumatic vertigo, and other related injuries. Id. Schroller’s 

husband suffered loss of consortium. Id. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $150,000. 

Id.

The District Court granted dismissal because it found the “discretionary function 

exception” (“DFE”) to the FTCA, as outlined in our prior precedent Merando v. United 

States, 517 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2008), controlled and immunized the U.S. from tort 

liability. We recognize that Michele Schroller alleged to have sustained major injuries 

after the October 7, 2009, incident. However, after a careful review of the record and the 

parties’ arguments, we find no basis for disturbing the District Court’s persuasive and 

well-reasoned conclusion. 

We therefore affirm the judgment for substantially the same reasons set forth in 

the District Court’s opinion. See Schroller, 2013 WL 3878690.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 483 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. HUDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farmers Against Crip5 pling Taxes Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and genera9 tion-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub11 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, gifts 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 483 IH

1 made, and generation-skipping transfers made after the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of 3SBio Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as amended hereby; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/    DR. JING LOU |
| Name:  |   | Dr. Jing Lou                            |
| Title: |   | Chief Executive Officer                 |

----
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2099 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:18:33 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2099 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:18:33 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2099 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:18:33 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2099 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:18:33 Page 4 of

4