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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 106 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 106

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an additional 
          place of holding court in the District of Colorado.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Hefley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an additional 
          place of holding court in the District of Colorado.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF 
              COLORADO.

    Section 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
``Colorado Springs,'' after ``Boulder,''.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3551

___________ Douglas J. Sample, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. * Kenneth Apfel, Acting Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED] of Social Security Administration, * * Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 20, 1999 Filed: May 7, 1999

___________ Before BEAM and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and KOPF, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Douglas Sample appeals from the district court’s 2order affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying him supplemental security income under Title XVI-2-

of the Social Security Act. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and that Sample is not entitled to supplemental security income. Because an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose in this fact-intensive case, we affirm the decision of the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In the Matter of Christopher W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court failed to comply with Family Court Act § 1055 (b) (v), which requires the court to set forth the basis for the length of placement ordered. While this error would normally require remittal, the issues presented will be moot by reason of the passage of time which will necessarily occur before this court could review any findings returned to us following a remittal. Therefore, we will make our own findings in the interest of justice and judicial economy *(see, Matter of Anna X.,*148 AD2d 890, *lv denied*74 NY2d 608). We find that Christopher’s father, his only living parent, has not involved himself in Christopher’s treatment planning and rehabilitation. That is required before discharge to his father’s home may be considered. Thus, we conclude that Christopher’s father has demonstrated an inability to care for him and that it is in Christopher’s best interest that placement be extended for the period ordered by the court *(see, Matter of Belinda B.,*114 AD2d 70, 74). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J.—extension of placement.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
T h e H on or abl e Ja mes K

. Si n g l et on , Se n i or D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e U

. S. * D i st ri ct C o urt f

o r Alas ka, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v. R OB ER TO B US TOS -O C HOA ,

Defendant-

Appellant

. No. 11-50471

D.C. No. 3:10-cr- 04188-DMS-1 Southern District of C al i fo rn i a, S anDi ego ORDER
Filed Apr il 22, 2013
Be fore : Dorothy

W. Nelson and Diarmuid F . O’Sca nnlain, Circuit J udg es, and James K. Single ton, Senior District

J udg e. *

OR DE R Th e op ini on

fi le d in thi s c a se on

De c e mbe r 1 8, 20 12 is he re by ame nd e d a s f

oll ow s: On pag e 5 of th e s l ip opinion, li nes 29–32, dele te the fo llo wi ngc itatio n: “ See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a) (1) ( noting that alien s deporta

ble under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(1)(2)( A)(iii)—the ag g ravated fe lony

statute—are n o t eligible f or voluntaryU NI TED S T A T ES V
. B US TOS -O C HOA 2 de pa rt ur e ). ” Re pl a c e thi s c itatio n w iththe fo llo wi ng : “ See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)( 1) (noting that aliens who have “be en convicted of

a cr ime descr ibed i n s ection 101(a )(43) of the Act”—the section def

ining a g g ravated fe lonies—are not e lig ibl e fo r vol un tary

de pa rt ur e ); se e als o 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(e) (“The Attorney

Gene ral may

by regulation limit elig ibilit y for voluntary depar

ture under t his section for any class or c lasses of aliens.” ).” Wit h this amendm en t , the pane l has voted to deny the petition for re hear ing a

nd re hear ing e n banc. T he pane l has v o t edu n an i m o u s l y

t o d en y t h e p et i t i o n fo r r eh ea ri n g. J u d ge O’ S cannla in has voted to deny the petition for re hear ing e n ba nc , a nd Ju dges Ne lso n a

nd Sin g le ton

have so rec ommended. The full court has been a dvised of the pe tition fo r r e h e ar in g e n b an c , an d n o ju d g e h a s r e qu e s te d a vote on whether to rehe ar the matter e n banc. F ed. R. App. P. 35. The pe tition for rehe aringand petition fo r rehearingen banc is DENI ED. No further petitions for panel r ehea ring or for r ehea ring en banc will be enter tained.
#### In the Matter of Pasquale Izzo et al., Petitioners, v Patrick R. Vecchio et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Smithtown, Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Smithtown dated December 15, 1987, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a license to operate a junkyard.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the petition is dismissed, on the merits, with costs.

We find that substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Board’s determination denying the petitioners’ application *(see,*CPLR 7803 [4]; *Matter of Reingold v Koch,*66 NY2d 994, 995; *Matter of Maytum v Nelson,*53 AD2d 221, 227). Although opposing evidence was provided by the parties’ respective experts, the duty of weighing that evidence and crediting one expert’s testimony rested primarily with the agency involved, not with the court *(see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436; *Matter of Dutra v Village of Port Chester,*162 AD2d 452). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-24-1999
<CASH>                                             182
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,756
<PP&E>                                           95418
<DEPRECIATION>                                   60700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  109538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            19930
<BONDS>                                          23330
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6964
<OTHER-SE>                                       53013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    109538
<SALES>                                          40942
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 40942
<CGS>                                            32997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    38687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1996
<INCOME-TAX>                                       705
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1291
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1291
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 65**  **5 3** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
IRVIN JAYOINE LEE BAKER, a/k/a Fats , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh , Chief District Judge. ( 3:14

- cr - 00041

- GMG

- JES

- 1 )

Submitted : August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER , DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Irvin Jayoine Lee Baker , Appellant Pro Se. Lynette Danae DeMasi

- Lemon , Jarod James Douglas , Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unp ublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Irvin Jayoine Lee Baker appeals the district court ’ s order s granting the Government’s motion to amend the preliminary order
of forfeiture and denying Baker’s motions for an extensio n of time and stay of forfeiture . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Baker ,
No. 3:14

- cr - 00041

- GMG

- JES

- 1 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 5, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
SEC Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000788784
<NAME> PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER>1000000
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>             JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>     10,897
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>    3,700
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>         1,784
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>       1,586
<OTHER-ASSETS>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                17,967
<COMMON>                       3,603
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>            1,675
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ> 5,251
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            963
<PREFERRED>                       95
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>           4,614
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                 0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>          0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS> 1,069
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>    646
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>          0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>       50
<LEASES-CURRENT>                   0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB> 5,279
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB> 17,967
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>      3,458
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>             226  <F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>     2,668
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>     2,889
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>          569
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                 8
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>   577
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>         264  <F2>
<NET-INCOME>                     313
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>       35
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>    313
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>         251
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>        200
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>           536
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                   1.35
<FN>
<F1> State  Income  Taxes of $1 and  Federal  Income  Taxes of $4 for Other
Income were  incorporated  into this line for FDS  purposes.  In the  referenced
financial  statements,  Total Other Income and  Deductions  are net of the above
applicable Federal and State income taxes.
<F2>Total interest expense includes Preferred Securities Dividends Requirements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.4

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18

of the United States Code

I, Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the
Quarterly Report of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.



/s/ Ralph IzzoRalph IzzoPublic Service Electric and Gas CompanyChief Executive OfficerJuly 30, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 99.1

                          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 PGI, Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Laurence A. Schiffer, 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 to the best of my knowledge:


(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/ Laurence A. Schiffer

    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer
    November 14, 2002




                                     19
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed June 10, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00278-CR

____________

EX PARTE MARY FRANCES WHITE

On Appeal from the 149th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 75377-1

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant timely appealed from the denial of her application for writ of habeas 

corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 § 8. On April 25, 2016, the trial 

court clerk filed the clerk’s record, which contain a certification of appellant’s right 

to appeal signed by appellant and her lawyer but not by the trial court. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 34.5(a)(12). On April 27, 2016, this court notified the trial court 

of the defect and requested the trial court to review the clerk’s record, correct the 

certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, request the district clerk to prepare 

and certify a supplemental clerk’s record containing the corrected certification, and 

file the supplemental clerk’s record with this court within 30 days. See Tex. R. App. 
2

P. 37.1; Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (when a 

certification is defective, appellate clerk should notify trial clerk of defect and direct 

him to file a corrected certification). 

The district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record on May 25, 2016. 

However, that supplemental record does not contain the requested corrected 

certification.

Appellant filed a motion to abate this appeal and order the trial court to prepare 

and file a corrected certification. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1 (“If a proper . . . 

certification of a criminal defendant’s right to appeal is not filed in the trial court 

within 30 days of the date of the [appellate] clerk’s notice, the [appellate] clerk must 

refer the matter to the appellate court, which will make an appropriate order under 

this rule or Rule 34.5(c)(2).”). The motion is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and order the trial court to prepare and file 

a corrected certification of appellant’s right to appeal with the district clerk. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), 37.1, 44.4; Cortez, 420 S.W.3d at 806–07. We order the 

district clerk to prepare, certify, and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

corrected certification by July 11, 2016.

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Center for Research Resources 
Special Emphasis Panel; Science Education Applications.
    Date: October 14, 2008.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Michael L. Bloom, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, 
6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1090, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0965, 
bloomm2mail.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical 
Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-21363 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[No. 34450.

Department Two.

November 29, 1957.]

#### Diane Agnes Sutter, *Plaintiff and Relator,*v. Joseph T. Sutter, *Defendant,*The Superior Court for Whatcom County, *Bert Kale, Judge, Respondent.*
      *1*

*355
      *Roehl & Dalquest,*for plaintiff and relator.

*Olson & Olson,*for defendant.

Reported in 318 P. (2d) 324.

Per Curiam.

On September 6, 1957, in response to an application therefor, a writ of review was issued directed to the respondent to review an order pertaining to the visitation rights of the defendant under a decree of divorce which the relator had obtained by default on March 15, 1957.

The divorce decree awarded custody of the minor daughter of the parties, aged two and one-half at the date of the divorce, to the relator, with reasonable visitation rights to the defendant. The order entered on July 29, 1957, entitled “Order Clarifying Custody,” provided that the defendant should have the right to have the child visit with him at his home for one week in July and one week in August of each year, and one weekend each month during the remainder of the year.

It is alleged in the petition for'writ of review that the order, in effect, modifies the custody provisions of the original decree, and that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the decree because the application was made by motion and affidavit for order to show cause rather than by verified petition, as required by RCW 26.08.170. The relator raises the further objection that the affidavit of the defendant fails to allege the necessary change in circumstance or that the welfare of the child would be served by the modification.

The relator seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this court by extraordinary writ on the ground that she has no right of appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. If there is a right of appeal or other adequate remedy available to the relator, the writ of review (or certiorari) will not lie. *State ex rel. Lyon v. Board of County Com’rs of Pierce County,*31 Wn. (2d) 366, 196 P. (2d) 997.

An order modifying a decree of divorce, changing the custody of a minor child is appealable under Rule on Appeal 14, subds. 6-7, 34A Wn. (2d) 20 (RCW Vol. 0). *356
      *State ex rel. Fent v. Smith,*123 Wash. 564, 212 Pac. 1055. The same is true of an order modifying or clarifying visitation rights, which is an order affecting substantial rights within the meaning of subds. 6 and 7.

The relator has cited no authority to the contrary nor does she give any reason why the remedy by appeal would not be adequate. The writ must, therefore, be quashed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Patterson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that the People established that defendant and codefendant forcibly deprived the complainant of the use of his truck, caused substantial damage to it and caused the complainant physical injury. That was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of robbery in the second degree *(People v Greene,*70 NY2d 860; *People v Thompson,*145 AD2d 952, *lv denied*73 NY2d 983), and the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, use in a photo array of a photograph retained by authorities in violation of CPL 160.50 does not require per se suppression of complainant’s in-court identification of defendant *(see, People v Dozier,*131 AD2d 587, *lv denied 70*NY2d 711; *People v London,*124 AD2d 254, *lv denied*68 NY2d 1001). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.