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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7331 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7331

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 11158 Highway 146 North in Hardin, Texas, as the ``Lucas Lowe Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2018

 Mr. Babin (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Ms. Granger, Mr. Conaway, 
Mr. Hurd, Mr. Vela, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
  Arrington, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Poe of Texas, Ms. 
 Jackson Lee, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. 
Sessions, Mr. Olson, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Al Green of Texas, 
 Mr. Culberson, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Fortenberry, 
 Mr. McClintock, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Curtis) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 11158 Highway 146 North in Hardin, Texas, as the ``Lucas Lowe Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LUCAS LOWE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 11158 Highway 146 North in Hardin, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lucas Lowe Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lucas Lowe 
Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo ARENAS-TOSCUENTO, aka Ricardo Arnes-Toscuento; aka Ricardo Arenas-Tosquento; aka Richard Arenas-Toscuento; aka Richard Tose-quento-Areas; aka Richard Toscunto Arenas; aka Richard Tosquento Arenas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50571.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 2001.1

Decided Jan. 16, 2001.

Before TROTT, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2)

MEMORANDUM2

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We affirm the district court for the following reasons:

Arenas-Toscuento’s pre-decision speculations to the contrary notwithstanding, *United States v. Graeidas-Ulibarry,*231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) made no change in the mental element required for a “found in” conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The “found in” offense continues to require only general intent rather than specific intent, *United States v. Ortiz-Vil-legas,*49 F.3d 1435, 1437 (9th Cir.1995), *735and this requirement is satisfied if the defendant is found in the United States after a voluntary entry or stayed in the United States voluntarily after an involuntary entry. *United States v. Quintana-Torres,*224 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2000).

Arenas-Toscuento’s return to the United States to see his sick mother was the result of a voluntary act, so the elements of the “found in” offense were established.

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 87-163.

#### United States Army Corps of Engineers et al. v. Ameron, Inc., et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.
#### ASSOCIATED MOUNTAIN TOP, INC. v. THE GREATE BAY HOTEL AND CASINO, INC., T/A SANDS HOTEL AND CASINO.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7310

BOBBY SHAW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY;

CHARLES CONDON, the Attorney General of the

State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-96-317-2-23)

Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 7, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to

file specific, timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant filed only general, conclusory objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. As the

magistrate judge advised, such general, non-specific objections are

not sufficient. See Howard v. Secretary, 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th

Cir. 1991); Opriano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1985).

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright

v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving

proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         878,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,678,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,084,565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       2,608,776<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,250,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,389,448
<BONDS>                                     34,521,003<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,715
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,304,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,250,963
<SALES>                                      6,124,156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,450,045
<CGS>                                        5,249,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,726,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0<F4>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                723,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                   275,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            448,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   448,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY DOES NOT PREPARE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET
<F2>INCLUDES DEFERRED INCOME TAX ASSET OF $683,000
<F3>INCLUDES NONRECOURSE OBLIGATIONS OF $10,246,125
<F4>AMOUNT, $827,176 IS INCLUDED IN TAG 30 "TOTAL COSTS"
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM FOSTER.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jaisun Garcha, Chief Financial Officer of Snipp Interactive Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: April 30, 2015





Jaisun Garcha

Jaisun Garcha,

Chief Financial Officer
----

----

|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | September 2, 2009                    |

----
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 20-F of ProQR Therapeutics N.V. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2016, as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Daniel de Boer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Smital Shah, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, 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 his or her 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.

Date: March 31, 2017



|    |  |                    |  |                                                      
|--- |  | ------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/ Daniel de Boer
|    |  | Name:              |  | Daniel de Boer                                       
|    |  | Title:             |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
|    | 
|By: |  | /S/ Smital Shah   
|    |  | Name:              |  | Smital Shah                                          
|    |  | Title:             |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF MULTIMEDIA ACCESS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES AS
OF JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         609,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,254,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                   124,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,151,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,012,005
<PP&E>                                       1,788,499
<DEPRECIATION>                                 720,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,447,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,046,583
<BONDS>                                      5,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           922
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,600,239)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,447,266
<SALES>                                      4,271,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,400,606
<CGS>                                        2,241,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,241,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,694,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                72,364
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             391,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,535,741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,535,741)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,535,741)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Fernando BRICE, a/k/a Tony, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4075.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 10, 2001.

*185James P. Rogers, Columbia, SC, for appellant. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Fernando Brice appeals his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. The district court sentenced Brice to 135 months of imprisonment. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that in his view there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising two issues: whether the district court (1) properly complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 at his plea hearing, and (2) properly sentenced him. Brice also has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We do not address the issues raised by counsel or Brice, however, because Brice waived his right to appeal his sentence, except for circumstances not present in this appeal. The record reveals that Brice knowingly waived his appellate rights in a valid plea agreement, *United States v. Broughton-Jones,*71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.1995), and that the district court carefully reviewed the provisions of the plea agreement with Brice at his plea hearing. The transcript of the plea hearing shows that the district court fully complied with the dictates of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. *United States v. Wiggins,*905 F.2d 51, 53-54 (4th Cir.1990) (holding that if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding waiver of his right to appeal during the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable). Also, we find none of the exceptions to the waiver rule present in this appeal. *See United States v. Marin,*961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992); *United States v. Attar,*38 F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir.1994). Thus, we find that Brice has waived his right to this appeal and we dismiss. *Wiggins,*905 F.2d at 53-54.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If his client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof has been served on his client. We grant Brice’s motion to deconsolidate *186this case from *United States v. McCrorey,*1 Fed.Appx. 186 (4th Cir.2001).

*DISMISSED.*
585 A.2d 346

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALBIRTHA JOHNSON.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Record of Individual Exposure U.S. Department of Labor 

to Radon Daughters Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Form Approved: O.M.B. No. 1219-0003, Approval Expires October 31, 2023. 

The operator shall calculate and record complete individual exposures to concentrations of radon daughters. 30 CFR 57.5040(b) requires 

the operator to maintain MSHA Form 4000-9, or an equivalent form acceptable to the Administrator of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety 

and Health. Data submitted to MSHA (on MSHA Form 4000-9, Record of Individual Exposure to Radon Daughters) is intended to: (a) 

Establish a means by which MSHA can assure compliance with underground radiation standards; (b) form a data base of miner exposure for future epidemiological studies; and (c) assure that miners can, upon written request, have records of cumulative exposures

made available to them or their state, and to medical and legal representatives who have obtained written authorization. 

Responding to this report is mandatory for a mine operator (30 CFR, Part 57). Failure to report can result in assessment of a civil penalty 

under Section 110 and institution of a civil action for relief under Section 108 of the Federal mine Safety and Health Act 1977. Knowingly 

making a false statement or concealing a material fact can result in criminal prosecution under Section 110 of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977 and 18 U.S.C. 1001. 

This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the date need, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. Send comments regarding the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Mine Safety 

and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 401, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452. Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 

Control Number. 

1. Mine ID Number

2. Mine 3. Section

4. Township 5. Range

6. County 7. State

8. Operator 9. Period ___/___/20___

10. Individual Exposure to Radon Daughters

Name

Identification Number 

Exposure, WLM 

 Current Year Cumulative Total 

MSHA Form 4000-9, Aug. 2015 rev. (Mailing Address)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1280

HENG DE ZHU,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-125-620)

Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: September 21, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Wall, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart E.

Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John J. Andre, Norah

Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Heng De Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of

China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum. The Board concluded that Zhu failed to show past persecution or a well-founded

fear of persecution on account of a protected ground that would

make him eligible for asylum relief. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158 (West

1999); § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). The decision to

grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive “unless manifestly

contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1252(b)(4)(D) (West 1999). We find that the Board correctly

applied the law and did not abuse its discretion in rendering its

decision here. Therefore, we deny a petition for review on the

reasoning of the Board. See In re Zhu, No. A78-125-620 (B.I.A.

Feb. 1, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED