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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3868 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3868

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation 
                    Act through September 30, 1996.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3868

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation 
                    Act through September 30, 1996.

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

SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS.

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended--
            (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as 
        follows:

                   ``authorization of appropriations

    ``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
1996 such sums as may be necessary to implement this part.'';
            (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1996'';
            (3) by adding at the end of section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 
        6276(h)) ``There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 1996 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
        part.''; and
            (4) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1996''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3914 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3914

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                 coastwise trade for the vessel BEACON.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 1996

Mr. Burton of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                 coastwise trade for the vessel BEACON.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), 
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 
12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel BEACON (United 
States official number 501539).
                                 <all>
```
#### Billy Earl SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47998.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 5, 1994.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for appellant.

Lew Kollias, Officer of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., and KENNEDY and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel granted plaintiff’s motion to submit this case on the briefs

without argument.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD HUNGA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-15110

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01852-DLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2012**

San Francisco, California

BEFORE: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Edward Hunga appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the

decision of an administrative law judge denying his application for social security

FILED

FEB 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

disability benefits. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural

history of the case, we need not recount it here.

After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district

court for the reasons set forth in the thorough order filed on December 2, 2010 by

Magistrate Judge Beck.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark BURTON, Appellant. Mark BURTON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66123, 68581.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Dec. 10, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30, 1997.

Application to Transfer Denied March 25, 1997.

Emmett D. Queenér, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, Richard L. Beaver, Jefferson City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David G. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., HOFF, J., and WILLIAM E. TURNAGE, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mark Burton was convicted of second degree murder, § 565.021 RSMo 19941 and armed criminal action, § 571.015 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a concurrent term of thirty years imprisonment.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of conviction for murder and armed criminal action is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b). The judgment denying the motion filed under Rule 29.15 is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL JERRY BEEBE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14995

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

THOMAS BIRKETT, TIM BEAVERS,

WILLIE O. SMITH, GERRY WYMA,

and DAVE BURNETT,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This matter is before the Court on the pro se plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

In his application, the plaintiff states that he is unable secure his own counsel and that the case

involves issues that are too complex for a litigant without counsel and, therefore, he should have

counsel appointed for him.

“‘[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court.

It is a privilege and not a right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting

United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)); see also Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d

469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (“In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal

complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the [plaintiff’s] ability to investigate

and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.”).

In this case, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. If,

however, the Court determines that counsel should be appointed for the plaintiff in the future, the

Court may revisit the plaintiff’s request.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel [dkt
-2-

# 3] is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 4, 2008

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 4, 2008.

s/Susan K. Pinkowski 

SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI
EXHIBIT 32.1



Correctional Services Corporation



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Correctional Services Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James F. Slattery, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/ James F. Slattery

---

James F. Slattery

President and

Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
James F. Slattery and will be retained by Correctional Services Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Fred SCOTT, Appellant.

No. 66554.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 25, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered pursuant to his conviction by a jury of second-degree robbery in violation of § 569.030 RSMo.1994, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in permitting the state to impeach his testimony with his post-arrest silence.

Defendant acknowledges that he did not properly preserve this issue for appellate review. He therefore requests review under the plain error standard of Rule 30.20. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted from the admission of this evidence. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).