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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4731 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4731

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2004

 Mr. Gerlach (for himself and Mrs. Tauscher) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

    Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.
                                 <all>
```
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

WASHINGTON, D.C.’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

. 

1 Prize Challenge 

Participant 

Awards Totaling $0.002 Million 

2 Grant Awards 

Totaling $1.54 Million 

•	 The George Washington 

University 

•	 National Alliance 

for Public Safety GIS 

Foundation 

WASHINGTON, D.C. BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$1.6 Million 

OUTPUT 

$2.3 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$1.3 Million 

EARNINGS 

$0.3 Million 

JOBS 

3 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4811 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4811

                  For the relief of Saikou A. Diallo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2004

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Saikou A. Diallo.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SAIKOU A. DIALLO.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Saikou A. Diallo shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Saikou A. Diallo enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Saikou A. Diallo, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if 
applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 202(e) of 
such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Saikou A. 
Diallo shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form [10-Q] [10-QSB] of WRP
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Lew Kwong Ann, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alan E.
Zeffer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Lew Kowng Ann
--------------------------------------------

Name:    Lew Kwong Ann
     ---------------------------------------
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  June 17, 2003

         /s/ Alan E. Zeffer
--------------------------------------------

Name:    Alan E. Zeffer
     ---------------------------------------
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  June 17, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

See also the certification pursuant to Sec. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, which is also attached to this Report.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-13-00339-CR

________________

RAY EARNEST A/K/A RAY ERNEST MINGO A/K/A EARNEST RAY 

MINGO A/K/A ERNEST RAY MINGO, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-11528

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Ray Earnest a/k/a Ernest Mingo a/k/a Earnest Ray Mingo a/k/a 

Ernest Ray Mingo filed a motion to dismiss his appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 

42.2. The motion is signed by appellant personally after counsel filed a brief which 

certifies that counsel could find no arguable error upon which to base an appeal. 

We therefore treat the motion to dismiss the appeal as agreed to by counsel. See

Tex. R. App. 42.2. No opinion has issued in this appeal.
2

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the 

appeal is therefore DISMISSED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN 

 Chief Justice

Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports and to all references to our Firm included in the attached prospectus.

                                              /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas, Texas
July 2, 1998
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00158

- CV

KAREN WEAVER AND STE PHEN WEAVER , Appellant s
v.

ERIC HRBACEK AND BRI DGET HRBACEK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES AND SOLE HEIRS OF TH E ESTATE OF LOUISE HRBACEK, DECE ASED , Appellee s

From the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 11

- C

- 3336

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Karen and Stephen Weaver and Appellees Eric and Bridget Hrbacek

ha ve filed a n “ Agreed Motion to Reverse and Remand. ” The parties state that they have

“reached an agreement to settle this matter and have now effectuated all requirements of

said settlement.” The parties therefore request that we reverse the trial court’s judgmentWeaver v. Hrbacek Page 2

and remand this matter to the trial court for dismissal in accordance with their settlement

agreement.

We construe th e parties’ motion as an agreement requesting this Court to set aside

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and to remand this case to the trial

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)( 2 ) (B). The parties’ motion is granted. We set aside the trial court’s

judgment without regard to the merits and remand this case to the trial court for rendition

of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Judge Oakes Evans 1 Motion granted; remanded Opinion delivered and filed December 21, 2016 [CV06]

1 The Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans, Judge of the 87th District Court , sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas under section 74.003(a) of the Government Code. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 74.003(a).
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3



                                                                          
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the inclusion in this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of our
report dated May 22, 1998, on our audit of the consolidated balance sheet of
LIN Holdings Corp. as of December 31, 1997. We also consent to the reference to
our firm under the caption "Experts".


                                               COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Dallas, Texas 
May 29, 1998
#### Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Cornelia Russ.

*QerMora/rir— Objections to evidence.*

On error bringing up a judgment affirmed on *certwra/ri,*only such* grounds can be'considered as are alleged in tbe affidavit for *aeriiora/i'i.*

Trivial questions relating to the admission of evidence before a justice-should not have weight on *certiorari.*

Error to St. Clair.

Submitted Jan. 12.

Decided Jan. 18.

Case. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*I. G. Stanley*for plaintiff in error.

Defendant has a-, right to demand, when the plaintiff has submitted his case,, that judgment shall be rendered in his favor, if plaintiff’s-proofs do not make out a case: *Merch. Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank*3 Cliff. 207; *Improvement Co. v. Munson*14 Wal. 448; *Pleasants v. Fant*22 Wal. 121; *Commissioners v. Clark*94 U. S. 284.

*A. S. Burgess*for defendant in error.

The reason for an objection to a question must be stated or it will not be presumed on error to have been overruled erroneously: *Morissey v. People*11 Mich. 327; and the reason cannot be given then if not assigned at the trial: *Campbell v. People*34 Mich. 351.

Graves, O. J.

The defendant in error recovered judgment before a justice of the peace which was affirmed in the-circuit court on *oertiora/ri*and the railway company now ask a reversal in this court on writ of error.

*501No grounds of error can be considered except those alleged in the affidavit for the *certiorari,*and the main one is that the justice refused to non-suit the plaintiff at the •close of her evidence. It is true that the motion was not ■denominated one for a non-suit, but such appears from the return to have been its effect. • The plaintiff offered to submit the' whole case on her evidence, but the counsel for ■the railroad company declined to do so and insisted on a ■decision of the motion under the reservation of a right to .submit evidence if the ruling was adverse.

The ruling of the justice was correct. There was evidence tending to sustain the plaintiff’s action and she was •entitled to have it submitted.

The questions concerning evidence are unimportant. *Cheney v. Russell*44 Mich. 620. This disposes of the case. There are some matters in the brief which are beyond the «charges of error and we do not consider them.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-144680, No.
333-43837, No. 333-43839, No. 333-72939 and No. 333-102701, and Form S-3, No. 333-81037) of
Siebert Financial Corp. and in the related prospectus of our report dated March
27, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Siebert
Financial Corp. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated February 26, 2008 with respect to the financial statements of
Siebert, Brandford, Shank & Co., L.L.C. included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.

/s/ Eisner LLP

New York, New York
March 27, 2008

---
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:





1.   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-15149) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Stock Option Plan for Directors,





2.   Registration Statement (Post-effective Amendment No. 3 to Form S-8 No. 33-4436) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Employee Savings and Stock Purchase Plan,





3.   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-40800) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan,





4.   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-40801) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Stock Option Plan for Directors (additional shares),





5.   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-48169) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan,





6.   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-04951) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Stock Option Plan for Directors (additional shares),





7.   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-04913) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Directors' Stock Plan,





|   |                                                                                                                                    
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-48168) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan,




|   |                                                                                                                  
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-09643) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Dividend Reinvestment Plan,




10.   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67658) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, and





11.  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-89486) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Employee Investment Plan;





12.  Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-175924) pertaining to the Questar Corporation Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan;





of our report dated February 21, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Questar Corporation, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Questar Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Questar Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2012.








/s/Ernst & Young LLP








Salt Lake City, Utah


February 21, 2013
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

KINGSLEY LYDELL WRIGHT 07-00415-001

10132-003

07-08-2008

Carlos Williams

✔

✔

121 months, all counts 120 months (see comments)

07-08-2008

06-15-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

The amended sentence is now 120 months on Counts 1 & 3, and 78 months on Count 2, said terms to run concurrently.

Counts 1 & 3 carry a mandatory minimum 10 year sentence.

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.06.15 10:55:15 -06'00'

Case 1:07-cr-00415-CG-M Document 68 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABDULLAH NAIM HAFIZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JAMES A. YATES, Warden; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15855 

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01392-BAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Abdullah Naim Hafiz appeals pro se from the 

magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). 

We vacate and remand.

Hafiz consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then dismissed Hafiz’s action before the named 

defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all 

parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the 

magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, see Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-

04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. 

VACATED and REMANDED.