alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 720 

AN ACT 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to improve attorney accountability, 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, 
2 

•HR 720 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduc3 tion Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY. 

5 (a) SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11.—Rule 11(c) of the 

6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘may’’ and in8 serting ‘‘shall’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Rule 5’’ and 

10 all that follows through ‘‘motion.’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘Rule 5.’’; and 

12 (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘situated’’ 

13 and all that follows through the end of the para14 graph and inserting ‘‘situated, and to compensate 

15 the parties that were injured by such conduct. Sub16 ject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the sanction 

17 shall consist of an order to pay to the party or par18 ties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred 

19 as a direct result of the violation, including reason20 able attorneys’ fees and costs. The court may also 

21 impose additional appropriate sanctions, such as 

22 striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, or other 

23 directives of a non-monetary nature, or, if warranted 

24 for effective deterrence, an order directing payment 

25 of a penalty into the court.’’. 
3 

•HR 720 EH

1 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

2 or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to 

3 bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, 

4 defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, 

5 including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of 

6 the United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 720 

AN ACT 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

and for other purposes. Procedure to improve attorney accountability,
#### David MARCANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D11-1658.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 2, 2011.

David Marcano, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Cruz v. State,*742 So.2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

ORFINGER, C.J., MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,443
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         347,527
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           348,226
<LOANS>                                        732,905
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,142,473
<DEPOSITS>                                     853,989
<SHORT-TERM>                                    65,820
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,051
<LONG-TERM>                                    115,465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,142,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,344
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,372
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,716
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,475
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,830
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,886
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      175
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,115)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (769)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (769)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,541
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,332
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  6,857
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,630
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       27
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,778
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,778
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,088                  75,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  59,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    246,721                  21,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,809                 161,118
<PP&E>                                         138,954               1,501,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                (69,476)               (421,786)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,316              19,545,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,764,973               1,221,650
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         1,669                   1,279
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,356,326)              14,439,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,316              19,545,169
<SALES>                                      1,872,629               2,547,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,872,629               2,547,225
<CGS>                                        2,145,955               1,152,721
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,153,852              11,860,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (9,171,863)             (2,097,761)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,418                  19,309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (23,480,754)            (12,583,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,595,424               1,653,161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,855,330)            (10,930,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,855,330)            (10,930,163)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.60)                   (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7274 

To provide an incentive for firearm owners to sell their firearms safely 

and responsibly. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2018 

Mr. BEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide an incentive for firearm owners to sell their 

firearms safely and responsibly. 

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 ‘‘Keeping Guns From 

5 Criminals Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7274 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF 

2 A FIREARM TO A PROHIBITED PERSON MADE 

3 INTO A STRICT LIABILITY CRIME WITH AF4 FIRMATIVE DEFENSES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(d) of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in the 1st sentence— 

8 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

9 by striking ‘‘any person knowing or having rea10 sonable cause to believe that such person’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘another person who’’; 

12 (B) in each of paragraphs (5) and (7), by 

13 striking ‘‘who,’’; and 

14 (C) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘who’’; 

15 and 

16 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘It shall 

17 be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this 

18 subsection that the defendant can prove by a pre19 ponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the 

20 sale or other disposition of the firearm, the National 

21 Instant Criminal Background Check System estab22 lished under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Vio23 lence Prevention Act had indicated to any person 

24 that a sale or other disposition of a firearm to the 

25 recipient would not be unlawful, or the recipient pos26 sessed a valid permit, issued to the recipient by the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 7274 IH

1 State in which the sale or other disposition occurred, 

2 which authorizes the carrying of a concealed weapon, 

3 unless the defendant knew or had reasonable cause 

4 to believe that this subsection prohibited the sale or 

5 disposition of a firearm or ammunition to the recipi6 ent or that subsection (g) prohibited the recipient 

7 from receiving a firearm or ammunition which has 

8 been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 

9 commerce.’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 924(a)(2) 

11 of such title is amended— 

12 (1) by striking ‘‘(d),’’; and 

13 (2) by inserting ‘‘, or violates subsection (d),’’ 

14 before ‘‘of section 922’’. 

15 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

16 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to con17 duct engaged in after the 90-day period that begins with 

18 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Drew C. HARTLEY, Appellant, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Appellee.

No. 4D09-1299.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 2010.

Drew C. Hartley, Milton, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lance Eric Neff, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appel-lee.

FARMER, J.

On motion for rehearing, the director of the Department of Corrections (DOC) has brought our attention to *Bush v. State,*945 So.2d 1207 (Fla.2006). Among other things, *Bush*held that:

> “the proper venue for a prisoner’s challenge to a sentence-reducing credit determination by [DOC], where the prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies and is not alleging entitlement to immediate release, continues to be in circuit court in Leon County, where the Department is located.”

945 So.2d at 1213-14. It follows that our decision on the venue issue is error. We therefore grant the motion for rehearing, vacate our February 17, 2010, opinion, and affirm the decision of the trial court transferring this case to the Second Circuit, *691Leon County, where DOC has its headquarters.

*Affirmed.*

WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Opinion issued June 4 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00397
- CV

——————————— LINTON WINFIELD , Appella nt

V. ROSEMONT CLEAR CREEK , Appell e e
On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1196718

MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant , Linton Winfield, ha s neither established indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b). On July 25, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Winfield t hat this appeal was subject to dismissal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b) , 42.3(b). On August 7, 2023,2

Winfield filed a response asserting that he is indigent and his “indigency was already proven in the lower courts.” Contrary to Winfield ’s assertion, appellee filed a response demonstrating that the trial court signed an order on May 30, 2023 (1) granting appellee’s conte st to Winfield ’s Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond , (2) finding that Winfield’s statement “ was materially false when made and Linton Winfield failed to prove the inability to afford fees ,” and (3) ordering Winfield to pay costs associated with the case. Winfield did not file a reply

. We agree with appellee’s response that Winfield has failed to demonstrate indigency. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**MARCUS JAMES LEMON**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM INACTIVE STATUS**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 118 DB 2016 (No. 71 RST 2016)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 79463** 

**(Lancaster County)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 19 th**  **day of September, 2016, the Report and Recommendat ion**  **of Disciplinary Board Member dated September 8, 2016, is approved and it is**  **ORDERED that Marcus James Lemon, who has been on Inactive Status, has never**  **been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral**  **qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the**  **Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to act ive status as a member of the**  **Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation**  **and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petit ioner.**
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61552-61553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory 
Committee (ATMAC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management 
Advisory Committee (ATMAC)

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory 
Committee (ATMAC)

DATES: The meeting will be held October 28, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 11 
a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, Colson Board 
Room, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036
    METRO: Red Line--Farragut North Station (Use L Street Exit) Blue/
Orange Line--Farragut West Station (Use 18th Street Exit).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee 
meeting. The agenda will include:
    <bullet> Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
    <bullet> Consideration for approval of Interim Recommendations from 
the Trajectory Operations (Tops) Work Group providing guidance to SC-
214 related to the development of standards for Air Traffic Control 
Data Communications.
    <bullet> FAA response on remaining gaps identified by the ATMAC 
between the TF5 recommendations and the FAA's NextGen Implementation 
Plan.
    <bullet> Closing Plenary (Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons

[[Page 61553]]

wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members 
of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any 
time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 29, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-24994 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Brenda LANGLINAIS.

No. 2010-KH-0176.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Langlinais, Brenda; -Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 07-2426; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-422.

Denied.
#### Robert Derron RILEY v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-07-0828.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 31, 2008.

Paul W. Brunson, Jr., Clayton, for appellant.

Troy King, atty. gen., and William D. Little, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

BASCHAB, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Robert Derron Riley, was convicted of second-degree assault, a violation of § 13A-6-21(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975.1 The trial court sentenced him, as a habitual offender, to serve a term of thirty-five years in prison. *See*§ 13A-5-9(c)(l), Ala. Code 1975. The appellant filed a “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for New Trial or Arrest of Judgment,” which the trial court denied after conducting a hearing. This appeal followed.

The appellant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in *82several instances. He raised several ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations during the hearing on his motion for a new trial. However, the trial court did not make any findings of fact regarding those allegations.2

Because the trial court is in the best position to make findings of fact regarding the appellant’s ineffective-assistance allegations, we remand this case to that court with instructions that it make specific, written findings of fact as to each of the allegations. *See Vinnie v. State,*866 So.2d 1175 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (remanding for specific findings of fact on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations raised in a motion for a new trial); *Stallings v. State,*793 So.2d 867 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (remanding for specific findings of fact on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations raised in a motion for a new trial); *Tubbs v. State,*753 So.2d 1209 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (remanding for specific findings of fact on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations raised in a motion for a new trial). On remand, the trial court may order the State to respond to the appellant’s specific allegations and/or may conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on those allegations. If the trial court determines that the appellant is entitled to relief, it may order such relief. The trial court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 56 days after the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall include the trial court’s specific, written findings of fact; a copy of the appellant’s records from Family and Community Medicine Associates that were introduced during the hearing on the motion for a new trial; a copy of the State’s response, if any; exhibits introduced during the remand proceedings, if any; and a transcript of the remand proceedings, if any, conducted by the trial court.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 

McMILLAN, SHAW, WISE, and WELCH, JJ., concur.

1

. The appellant was also convicted of second-degree criminal mischief in case number CC-07-69. However, he did not appeal that conviction.

2

. We also note that, during the hearing on the motion for a new trial, counsel provided the court with a copy of the appellant's records from Family and Community Medicine Associates. However, the record on appeal does not include those records.
#### Johnathan D. ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, o/b/o Rachel H. BREWER, Appellee.

No. 1D10-0790.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 9, 2010.

Rehearing Denied July 29, 2010.

Johnathan D. Rogers, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and William H. Branch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Johnathan D. Rogers appeals an order of the circuit court which denied his motion to abate child support. This order was entered after a hearing on the motion where Rogers did not appear. Appellee confesses error, conceding that Rogers did not have proper notice of the hearing. We find this confession to be proper and ac*285cordingly vacate the order on appeal and remand to the trial court for a properly noticed hearing on appellant’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 1997 (unaudited) and Statements of Income for the
three months ended June 30, 1997 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1997 
<CASH>                              8,402,000
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                       3,049,000
<ALLOWANCES>                         (213,000)
<INVENTORY>                           838,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   12,318,000
<PP&E>                              3,084,000
<DEPRECIATION>                     (1,366,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     15,913,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,989,000
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                            7,189,000
<OTHER-SE>                          6,735,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       15,913,000
<SALES>                             6,296,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    6,296,000
<CGS>                               3,873,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       3,873,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1,294,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     1,247,000
<INCOME-TAX>                          461,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   786,000
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          786,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .23



</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-204155) pertaining to the Helius
Medical Technologies Inc. (formerly NeuroHabilitation Corporation) June 2014
Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated January 30, 2015 relating to the
financial statements of Helius Medical Technologies Inc. (formerly
NeuroHabilitation Corporation), included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
the Company for the year ended March 31, 2015.

|                  | DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP
|----------------- | ------------------------
|Vancouver, Canada | Chartered Accountants   
|                  |                         
|June 26, 2015     |                         



---