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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 563 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 563

    To amend the National Historic Preservation Act to prohibit the 
inclusion of certain sites on the National Register of Historic Places, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 1995

  Mr. Herger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the National Historic Preservation Act to prohibit the 
inclusion of certain sites on the National Register of Historic Places, 
                        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. ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION ON NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC 
              PLACES.

    Section 101(a)(6) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 470 and following) is amended by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(6)'' 
and by adding the following at the end thereof:
    ``(B) After the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, any 
unimproved or unmodified natural landscape feature which does not 
contain artifacts or other physical evidence of human activity that 
have unique significance in history or pre-history shall not be--
            ``(i) eligible for inclusion on the National Register of 
        Historic Places;
            ``(ii) included on the National Register of Historic 
        Places; or
            ``(iii) considered to be a historic or pre-historic 
        property or historic resource for purposes of this Act or any 
        other Federal law.
Nothing in this subparagraph shall invalidate or otherwise affect any 
determination made under this Act or under any other Federal law prior 
to the enactment of this subparagraph with respect to any site.''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF DESIGNATION OF MT. SHASTA

    The Mt. Shasta area in the State of California, as generally 
depicted on the United States Forest Service map entitled ``Geographic 
Limits Multiple Property Form Mt. Shasta Native American Culture and 
History'', numbered 1, and dated April 1993, may not be designated by 
any agency or authority of the United States as a historic district, 
historic site or national monument under the National Historic 
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and following) or the Antiquities Act 
(16 U.S.C. 431-433). Any designation made prior to the enactment of 
this Act which is inconsistent with the preceding sentence shall cease 
to have any force and effect upon the enactment of this Act. The map 
referred to in this section shall be on file and available for public 
inspection in the offices of the United States Forest Service, 
Department of Agriculture.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Coleman, Appellant.

[677 NYS2d 800]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered May 14, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant’s claim that he acted as agent of an undercover police officer while purchasing and selling narcotics *(see, People v Herring,*83 NY2d 780). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
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
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trius Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey Stein,
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, to my knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; 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/    JEFFREY
STEIN                                 
|Jeffrey Stein, Ph.D.                                 
|Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

March 24, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Saul MONTES-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50173.

D.C. No. CR-01-02890-NAJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 5, 2003.

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Saul Montes-Garcia appeals his conviction and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

Montes-Garcia’s argument that his indictment was legally insufficient is precluded by circuit law. *United States v. Parga-Rosas,*238 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 942, 122 S.Ct. 319, 151 L.Ed.2d 238 (2001). Nothing in *Unit*
      *218
      *ed States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), alters the controlling effect of *Parga-Rosas*here. The indictment also adequately alleged the necessary *mens rea*for the charged offense. *Pena-Cabanillas v. United States,*394 F.2d 785, 788-90 (9th Cir.1968).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the warrant and order of deportation into evidence. *United States v. Hernandez-Herrera,*273 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir.2001) (citing *United States v. Contreras,*63 F.3d 852, 857 (9th Cir.1995)).

The district court did not err in treating Montes-Garcia’s prior armed robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 as a “crime of violence” for the purposes of increasing Montes-Garcia’s sentence level by 16 levels.1
      *See*U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). We have found robbery under § 211 to be a crime of violence before, *see United States v. David H.,*29 F.3d 489, 494 (9th Cir.1994), basing our decision on language relevant to the Sentencing Guideline at issue here, and we have applied this understanding of robbery in California in related Sentencing Guidelines decisions. *See United States v. McDougherty,*920 F.2d 569, 573-74 (9th Cir.1990). Thus, the district court did not err to increase Montes-Garcia’s sentence level 16-levels.

Montes-Garcia’s argument that *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), overruled *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is precluded by *United States v. Packeco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503,149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. The district court mistakenly referred to the "crime of violence” as an "aggravated felony” at sentencing. Such a designation would carry a limitation of an 8 level increase. However, it is quite clear from the record that this was merely a mistaken reference. The briefs and arguments focused on the requirements for a "crime of violence.” In context, the true meaning of the district court’s statement is readily apparent and not contested by the parties.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 36 04

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ant on io Mu ril lo -Cad en a ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lPeti ti on er

v. Eric H. Hold er, J r. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lResp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: May 30, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Ju ne 12 , 20 14 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Mex ic an ci ti zen Ant oni o Mur ill o-Cad en a pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r of th e Bo ard o f I mm i gr at io n App eal s, de nyin g hi s req ue st to reo pe n hi s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs . Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at no ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rred
. See Ch en v. Hol de r, No. 13 -1 10 3, 20 14 W L 18 87 36 4, at *2 (8 th Ci r. May, 13 , 20 14 )(ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd of rev ie w). Acco r d i n g l y , we de ny th e pe ti ti on fo r

rev ie w. See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2
-
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 RTW, Inc.Dated: March 30, 2007
By
    /s/ Jeffrey B. MurphyJeffrey B. MurphyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: March 30, 2007
By
    /s/  Alfred L. LaTendresseAlfred L. LaTendresseExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6196 

To require the Secretary of Defense to reduce the fluctuations of supply 

and demand for certain covered items, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Ms. SLOTKIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to reduce the fluctuations of supply and demand for certain covered items, 

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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supply Chain Fluctua5 tion Forecasting Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF FLUCTUATIONS OF SUPPLY AND 

7 DEMAND FOR CERTAIN COVERED ITEMS. 

8 (a) SUPPLY AND DEMAND REQUIREMENTS.—Not 

9 later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act, the Secretary of Defense shall— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6196 IH

1 (1) specify methods and processes to track and 

2 reduce fluctuations in supply chain forecasting and 

3 demand requirements of the Office of the Secretary 

4 of Defense, each military department (as defined in 

5 section 101 of title 10, United States Code), and the 

6 Defense Logistics Agency for covered items; and 

7 (2) implement policies to encourage predictable 

8 demand requirements for covered items for the Of9 fice of the Secretary of Defense, each military de10 partment, and the Defense Logistics Agency. 

11 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 15 months after the 

12 date of the enactment of this Act, and quarterly there13 after, each Secretary of a military department and the Di14 rector of the Defense Logistics Agency shall submit to the 

15 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

16 Sustainment a report on the fluctuations in supply chain 

17 forecasting and demand requirements for each covered 

18 item, expressed as a percentage. 

19 (c) COVERED ITEM DEFINED.—In this section, the 

20 term ‘‘covered item’’ means a covered item described in 

21 subparagraph (B), (C), or (E) of subsection (b)(1) or sub22 section (b)(2) of section 2533a of title 10, United States 

23 Code. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jesus YANEZ-PLANCARTE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-30264.

D.C. No. CR-01-02146-FVS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Yanez-Plancarte appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being an alien found in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U. S.C. § 1326.

The record is insufficiently developed to address on direct appeal Yanez-Planearte’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *United States v. Reyes-Platero,*224 F.3d 1112,1116 (9th Cir.2000).

Because there is no indication in the record that the district court believed it lacked authority to grant a downward departure based on a “combination of factors,” the district court’s failure to depart on that basis *sua sponte*is not appealable. *United States v. Garcia-Garcia,*927 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.1991) (failure to depart, when the record is silent on the issue of authority and sentence is imposed within the applicable guideline range, is not appealable); *cf. United States v. Castillo-Casiano,*198 F.3d 787, 790 (9th Cir.1999), *amended,*204 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir.2000) (reviewing for plain error the district court’s failure to depart *sua sponte*on a ground that was barred by law at the time of sentencing).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Enoch C. March, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*George D. Wright, Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO SCOTT.

In an action of debt it is error for the court to enter a judgment for the aggregate of the principal and interest.

It is the duty of the court to ascertain the amount of each, and render a judgment for the principal as debt, and the interest as damages.

Where interest is not specifically claimed in the declaration, it cannot be considered as part of the debt, and can only be recovered as'damages.

This cause was heard, by Woodson, Judge, at September term, 1850, of the Scott Circuit Court.

W. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

M. McConnel, for defendant in error.

Treat, C. J.

This was an action of debt brought by Wright against March. The declaration alleged generally that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $160.87, for work and labor done ; and it concluded to the damage of the plaintiff $100. The defendant pleaded *nil*debet, and payment. The record states : “ This day came the parties by their attorneys, and issues being joined, by consent, the same are tried by the court; and the court having heard the cause, finds the issues for the plaintiff; thereupon it is considered and adjudged, that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of $201.87, the debt and interest found to be due.”

It was error to enter a judgment for the aggregate of the principal and interest. It was the duty of the court to ascertain the amount of each, and render judgment for the principal as debt, and for the interest as damages. As interest was not specifically claimed in the declaration, it could not be considered as part of the debt. If recoverable at all, it was only as damages for the detention of the debt. Judgment should have been entered for the amount of the indebtedness established by the evidence as the debt, and for the amount of the interest due thereon, as the damages. Wilmans *v.*Bank of Illinois, 1 Gilman, 667; Mager *v.*Hutchinson, 2 Ibid. 266.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, BALANCE SHEET, AND STATEMENT OF
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000811156
<NAME> CMS ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,974
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,648
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,961
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,011
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,594
<COMMON>                                             1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        2,666
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              (180)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              944
<PREFERRED>                                         44
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             2,086
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 317
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        5,006
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      273
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         89
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    35
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   3,313
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   14,594
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        4,379
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                92
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       3,631
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       3,723
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            656
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   9
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     665
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           368
<NET-INCOME>                                       297
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         41
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      256
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           202
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             440
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.29<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.25
<FN>
<F1>EPS for CMS Energy Common Stock  $2.29
    EPS for Class G Common Stock     $ .90
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SHARRON DESHAZIER,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-1184

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

/

Opinion filed September 23, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County,

Renee A. Roche, Judge.

Sharron Deshazier, Lowell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Sharron Deshazier appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in which he alleged ineffective assistance

of trial counsel. We conclude that although the allegations set forth in Ground One and

a part of Ground Four (the alleged failure to depose Marty Carr or Steven Reed) were

legally insufficient, Deshazier should have been afforded the opportunity to amend these
particular claims. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761-62 (Fla. 2007). The trial

court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

2
Exhibit








DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES
REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


Description of our Capital Stock


The following discussion of our capital stock is a summary and should be read in conjunction with our Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.0 is a part. Unless otherwise indicated, the terms “Company”, “Chefs’ Warehouse”, “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to The Chefs’ Warehouse, Inc.


Authorized Capital Stock


We are authorized to issue 100,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share (“Common Stock”), and 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, $0.01 par value per share (“Preferred Stock”). We have not issued any Preferred Stock as of December 27, 2019.


Voting Rights


Holders of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters voted on by the stockholders, including the election of directors. 


Dividend Rights


Subject to any preferential rights of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, the holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends, if any, as may be declared from time to time by the Board of Directors in its discretion out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends.


Liquidation Rights


Subject to any preferential rights of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, holders of Common Stock will share ratably in all assets legally available for distribution to our stockholders in the event of dissolution.


Miscellaneous
    
Holders of our common stock have no preemptive, subscription, redemption or conversion rights. The rights, preferences and privileges of holders of our common stock are subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of shares of any series of Preferred Stock which we may designate and issue in the future.


Listing


The Common Stock is listed on Nasdaq under the trading symbol “CHEF.”
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 164 (Friday, August 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19497]



[[Page 49653]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 
Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of 
the meeting on September 9-11, 2008 are to review new start and 
continuing research and development projects requesting Strategic 
Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M. 
This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, 
appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at 
the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

DATES: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, 
September 10, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, September 11, 
2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: SERDP Office Conference Center, 901 North Stuart Street, 
Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan Bunger, SERDP Office, 901 
North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA 22203, telephone (703) 
696-2126.

    Dated: August 15, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
 [FR Doc. E8-19497 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P