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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1791 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1791

 To provide a grant under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
1965 to assist in the development of a Millennium Cultural Cooperative 
                       Park in Youngstown, Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2001

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide a grant under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
1965 to assist in the development of a Millennium Cultural Cooperative 
                       Park in Youngstown, Ohio.

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

SECTION 1. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT GRANT FOR NONPROFIT 
              YOUNGSTOWN PLAYHOUSE OF YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO.

    (a) Grant Authority.--During each of the fiscal years 2002 through 
2006, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to use the land and 
water conservation fund established under section 2 of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-5) to make a grant 
to the nonprofit Youngstown Playhouse of Youngstown, Ohio, to assist 
the grant recipient to develop a Millennium Cultural Cooperative Park 
in Youngstown, Ohio. The amount of the grant for a fiscal year shall be 
equal to $2,000,000.
    (b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, acting through the 
National Park Service, shall provide technical assistance to the grant 
recipient in developing this unique type of urban park.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1877

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that certain sexual crimes

against children are predicate crimes for the interception of communications, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2001

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr.

GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. ENGLISH, Ms. NORTON, and Ms.

HART) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that

certain sexual crimes against children are predicate

crimes for the interception of communications, 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 ‘‘Child Sex Crimes

5 Wiretapping Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1877 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMU2 NICATIONS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF SEX3 UAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.

4 (a) CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.—Section 2516(1)(c) of

5 title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘sec6 tion 2252A (relating to material constituting or containing

7 child pornography),’’ after ‘‘2252 (sexual exploitation of

8 children),’’.

9 (b) TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIV10 ITY.—Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, as

11 amended by section 3 of this Act, is amended—

12 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

13 (o);

14 (2) by inserting after paragraph (o) the fol15 lowing:

16 ‘‘(p) a violation of section 2422 (relating to

17 coercion and enticement) or section 2423 (relat18 ing to transportation of minors) of this title, if,

19 in connection with that violation, the sexual ac20 tivity for which a person may be charged with

21 a criminal offense would constitute a felony of22 fense under chapter 109A or 110, if that activ23 ity took place within the special maritime and

24 territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or’’;

25 and
3

•HR 1877 IH

1 (3) by redesignating paragraph (p) as para2 graph (q).

3 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT ELIMINATING DUPLICA4 TIVE PROVISION.

5 Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking the first paragraph (p); and

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

9 (o).

Æ
GK INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended March 31, 2001 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary F. Kimmons, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.ss. 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.



Dated: March 25, 2003                   /S/ Gary F. Kimmons
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        By: Gary F. Kimmons
                                        Its: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22185]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 17, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. First National Bankers Bankshares, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 
to merge with Arkansas Bankers Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly acquire Arkansas Bankers Bank, both of Little Rock, 
Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 18, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-22185 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Order entered August 2, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00834-CV

IN RE WALTER JOHN STANTON, III, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-07601

ORDER

Before the Court is relator’s July 31, 2017 unopposed motion for leave to file a reply to 

real parties’ response to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’s motion is 

GRANTED. Relator’s reply shall be filed by August 4, 2017.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-2521

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v. Matthew Lee Klopfenstine lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________ Submitted: February 15, 2013 Filed: March 4, 2013

____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ RILEY, Chief Judge. A jury convicted Matthew Klopfenstine of producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). Kl opfenstine challenges the district court’s 1

1 The Honorable Nanette Laughrey, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.failure sua sponte to dismiss a juror for cause after the juror arguably expressed an inability to consider the evidence ag ainst Klopfenstine impartially. Because Klopfenstine admittedly failed to raise this objection during the jury selection process, he has waived the issue, intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right. See United States v. Johnson , 688 F.3d 494, 501 (8th Cir. 2012) (deciding “failing to object to the seating of [a j]uror . . . during voir dire [equate s to] ‘intentional[] relinquish[ment] or abandon[ment of] . . . a known right,’” waiving any challenge to the seating of a juror on appeal (quoting United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993))). 2 The subject juror’s answers, which ar e now challenged on appeal, were heard and addressed by the district court and defense counsel during voir dire without defense counsel either asking the trial court to strike the juror for cause or exercising a peremptory strike to remove the juror. Jury selection is driven by the strategy of legal counsel, and while that strategy often is not much mo re accurate than reading tea leaves, we will not review that strategy on di rect appeal without the juror qualification issue being raised in a timely manner. We affirm.

______________________________

2 Klopfenstine argues Johnsonis not controlling because Johnsonconflicts with United States v. Mann , 685 F.3d 714, 719-20 (8th Cir. 2012), and was decided two weeks after Mann . Johnson analyzed and rejected Mannas being inconsistent with earlier precedent. SeeJohnson , 688 F.3d at 501 & n.5 (citing United States v. Pennington , 168 F.3d 1060, 1067 (8th Cir. 1999); Mader v. United States , 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). Mann , without comment, adopted plain error review and did not discuss the waiver issue. Mann , 685 F.3d at 719. We reject Klopfenstine’s argument. -2-
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1
HealthDesk Corporation
Computation of Earnings per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended June 30,         Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                      -------------------------------    -------------------------------
                                                            1997             1998              1997              1998
                                                            ----             ----              ----              ----
<S>                                                   <C>               <C>              <C>               <C>
Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding used for both Basic and Diluted
calculations.....................................         5,392,845         5,792,845        5,028,279         5,679,309
                                                      -------------     -------------    -------------     -------------

Net Loss.........................................     $   (1,081,264)   $     (857,070)  $  (2,282,906)    $  (1,601,377)
                                                      ==============    ==============   =============     =============

Basic net loss per share.........................     $        (0.20)   $        (0.15)  $        (0.45)   $        (0.28)
                                                      ==============    ==============   ==============    ==============
Diluted net loss per share.......................     $        (0.20)   $        (0.15)  $        (0.45)   $        (0.28)
                                                      ==============    ==============   ==============    ==============
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Muriel Philbin, Individually and as Executrix of William Philbin, Deceased, Respondent, v A.C. and S., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 84]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered June 2, 2005, which denied the motion for summary judgment by defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Con Edison dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it.

According to plaintiffs appellate brief, the claim against Con Edison is based on the decedent’s testimony that, while employed on a roofing project at a Con Edison facility for two months during the 1970s, his work cutting roofing material exposed him to asbestos dust. Con Edison’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted, as the present record affords no evidentiary basis for holding Con Edison liable on plaintiffs common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action. There is no evidence that Con Edison supervised or controlled the decedent’s work *(see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]; *Mazzocchi v International Bus. Machs.,*294 AD2d 151, 151-152 [2002]); in this regard, we note that the mere presence of Con Edison personnel at the work site, while perhaps indicative of a general right of inspection, does not suffice to create an inference of supervisory control *(see Comes,*82 NY2d at 877; *Mazzocchi,*294 AD2d at 152). Nor is there any evidence that the decedent’s alleged asbestos exposure arose from a workplace condition created by, or known to, Con Edison, rather than from the contractor’s work methods *(cf. Murphy v Columbia Univ., 4*AD3d 200, 202 [2004]). In addition, plaintiff failed to present any admissible evidence that the roofing material the decedent cut contained asbestos.

We reject plaintiff’s argument that Con Edison’s moving *375papers failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment. The attorney’s affirmation on which Con Edison moved, although it did not have the relevant transcripts attached, summarized the deposition testimony relied upon, and transcripts of such testimony were supplied with plaintiffs opposition papers, which raised no procedural objections. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5  Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3  Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8  Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8  Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9  Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1  Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Q2... 80.5 79.6 52.8 77.7 72.5 94.5 68.5 66.1 67.6 88.9  Q3... 74.5 67.5 48.7 71.0 68.8 92.1 60.5 60.1 60.9 82.0  Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2 2005: Q1... 72.7 61.2 73.9 73.5 51.6 83.2 66.7 59.1 64.2 78.1  Q2... 82.7 64.7 78.6 74.9 89.7 95.4 65.8 64.4 69.5 88.9  Q3... 75.3 70.0 70.5 63.3 89.1 88.4 68.5 66.5 61.5 81.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fidel Oscar CASTANEDA-AGUILAR, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10700.

D.C. No. CR-01-00756-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March *10, 2003.****

Decided March 17, 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**

Fidel Oscar Castaneda-Aguilar appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, and his 60-month sentence for reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), with sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Because our independent review of the record and the briefs on appeal pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Castaneda-Aguilar knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. *United States v. Martinez,*143 F.3d 1266, 1270-72 (9th Cir.1998) (enforcing waiver of right to appeal where waiver is knowing and voluntary and sentence is in accordance with plea agreement).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

**

 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.
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 Quarterly Report of National Holdings Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Mark Goldwasser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:




(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/ Mark
Goldwasser


Mark Goldwasser


Chief Executive Officer


August 14, 2009
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1890

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide for inflation adjustments to the mandatory jurisdiction thresholds of the National Labor

Relations Board.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. ISTOOK (for himself, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs.

NORTHUP, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide for

inflation adjustments to the mandatory jurisdiction

thresholds of the National Labor Relations Board.

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

3 SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO MANDATORY JU4 RISDICTION THRESHOLDS OF NATIONAL

5 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

6 Section 14(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act

7 (29 U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(c)(1)(A) MANDATORY JURISDICTION.—The Board

9 shall assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving
2

•HR 1890 IH

1 any class or category of employers over which it would

2 assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing on Au3 gust 1, 1959, with the financial threshold amounts ad4 justed for inflation under subparagraph (B).

5 ‘‘(B) INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS.—The Board, begin6 ning on October 1, 2001, and not less often than every

7 5 years thereafter, shall adjust each of the financial

8 threshold amounts referred to in subparagraph (A) for in9 flation, using as the base period the later of (i) the most

10 recent calendar quarter ending before the financial thresh11 old amount was established, or (ii) the calendar quarter

12 ending June 30, 1959. The inflation adjustments shall be

13 determined using changes in the Consumer Price Index

14 for all urban consumers published by the Department of

15 Labor and shall be rounded to the nearest $10,000. The

16 Board shall prescribe any regulations necessary for mak17 ing the inflation adjustments.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-14-PB

Alan Katz

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

June 3, 2008 trial in the above case to allow time to complete

discovery and engage in plea negotiations or prepare for trial. 

The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date. 

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the court will continue

the trial from June 3, 2008 to September 3, 2008. In agreeing to

continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §

3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of

justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00014-PB Document 10 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 20, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

August 26, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 19, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00014-PB Document 10 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 2