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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4337 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4337

   To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the assurance 
required of owners and operators of airports with respect to long-term 
                  leases for construction of hangars.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2004

  Mr. Pearce introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the assurance 
required of owners and operators of airports with respect to long-term 
                  leases for construction of hangars.

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

SECTION 1. HANGAR CONSTRUCTION.

    Section 47107(a)(21) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``(of not less than 75 years)'' after ``long-term lease''.
                                 <all>
```
| Base      Salary                                | $                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                            |                                                                      |
| Times                                           |                                                                      |
|                                            |                                                                      |
| Award      Opportunity (percent of base salary) | %             |
|                                            |                                                                      |
| Equals                                          |                                                                      |
|                                            |                                                                      |
| Target      Award                               | $                                                                         |

|  Goal      Performance Level | Payout      as Percent ofTarget      Award |  Award      Amount |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Superior                          | 200%                                       | $                       |
| Target                            | 100%                                       | $                       |
| Threshold                         | 37.5%                                      | $                       |
| Below      Threshold              | 0%                                         | $                       |

|   |                 |                                       |   |   |                  |   | Goal      |
|--------|----------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------|--------|-----------|
|   |                 |                                       |   |   |                  |   | Weighting |
|   | Financial      Goals |                                       |   |   |                  |   |
|   |                 | Net      Income from Continuing Operations | 50%    |
|   |                 | Cash      from Operating Activities        |   | 25%    |
|   |                 |                                       |   |   |                  |   |      |
|   | Strategic      Goals |                                       |   |   |   25%  |
|   |                 |                                       |   |   |                  |   | 100%      |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6894** 

CHARLES FRANCIS GRAHAM , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. THEODIS BECK , Respondent

- Appellee , and
FREDERICK HUBBARD , Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 00149

- RJC )

Submitted : September 11, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Charles Francis Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles Francis Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ( 2006 ) petition . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional righ t. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graham’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT KEVIN LEE, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. CA 04-0765-C

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this

date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision

of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be reversed

and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan

v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further

proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. The remand pursuant to

sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of

the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509

U.S. 292, 112 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and 

terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 

Case 1:04-cv-00765-C Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE this the 23rd day of September, 2005.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00765-C Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-19011, No. 333-71373, No. 333-42276, No. 333-45534, No.333-73652, and No. 333-89176), and on Form S-3 (No. 333-138023, No. 333-134666, No. 333-130977, No. 333-130423,No. 333-129141, No. 333-128020, No. 333-128019, No. 333-123902, No. 119645, No. 333-102244,  No.333-76432 No. 333-69652 No. 333-33612, No. 333-89257, No. 333-84587, No. 333-81311, No. 333-79753 and No. 333-76395)of Microvision, Inc. of our report dated March 13, 2007 relating to the financial statements,financial statement schedule, managements assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Seattle, Washington
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4770 

To suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2004 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GLYOXYLIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.34.41 Glyoxylic acid (provided for 

in subheading 2918.30.90) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 
2 

•HR 4770 IH 

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

2)   the information contained in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/ALEXANDER Y. TOKMAN
    Alexander Y. Tokman
    Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 2, 2007

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                                        
                            225 BARONNE STREET, INC.
                                INCOME STATEMENT
                   FOR THE TWO MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998
                                        
                     (See Accountants' Compilation Report)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       2 Months Ended
                                                       Feb. 28, 1998
                                                       --------------
<S>                                                    <C>
REVENUE:
  RENTAL INCOME                                            344,542.38
  OTHER INCOME                                                 336.22
                                                        -------------

     TOTAL REVENUE                                         344,878.60
                                                        -------------
COST OF OPERATIONS:
  RENTAL OPERATING COSTS                                   210,412.84
                                                        -------------

     INCOME (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS                         134,465.76
                                                        -------------
OTHER INCOME AND (EXPENSES):
  INVESTMENT INCOME                                            750.00
  INTEREST EXPENSE                                          (2,355.70)
                                                        -------------

     TOTAL OTHER INCOME AND (EXPENSES)                      (1,605.70)
                                                        -------------

     NET INCOME (LOSS)                                  $  132,860.06
                                                        =============
</TABLE>





                                       27
#### Chas. Jackson *v.*Lewis Jackson.

Dismissal and Non-Suit — Lapse of Time — Doubt of Right.

The lapse of time and also the doubtful existence of a promise to pay, together with the positive denial of the defendant of the promise, were held to warrant the dismissal of the petition.

APPEAL PROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT.

April 2, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The lapse of time connected with the unsatisfactory proof in regard to the promise to pay, must preclude the appellant from' any relief. A period of ten years elapsed, according to appellant’s theory of this case, from the time of the dissolution of the partnership to the institution of the action; and the promise relied on to take the case out of the statute is proven by the appellant, and denied by the ap-pellee. It is questionable whether such a partnership existed as is *651alleged; and also doubtful as to the existence of such a promise to pay, as would enable the appellant to recover. Add to this the lapse of time and the positive denial by the appellee, and we are well -satisfied that the chancellor did right in dismissing the petition.

*Porter & Wallace, for appellant.*

*W. Turner, for appellee.*

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

            In connection with the Annual Report of Mills Music Trust. (the
"Trust") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Marcia Markowski, the
Trust officer of the corporate trustee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, 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; and

            2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Trust.*

* The statements of cash receipts and disbursements reflect only cash
transactions and do not include transactions that would be recorded in financial
statements presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The Trust is required
to distribute all funds received after payment of expenses. Accordingly, the
Trust has not prepared any statements of financial condition or cash flows.

Date: March 29, 2005                    /s/ Marcia Markowski
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Marcia Markowski
                                        Trust officer of The Corporate Trustee

                                      -22-
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4589 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4589

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
      program through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4589

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
      program through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TANF and Related Programs 
Continuation Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK 
              GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004.

    (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title IV of the 
Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), and 1925 of such 
Act, shall continue through September 30, 2004, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) 
of such Act, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 
not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made 
pursuant to this authority through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
2004 at the level provided for such activities through the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2002.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking ``June 
30'' and inserting ``September 30''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF CHILD WELFARE 
              AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 
              2004.

    Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the Social 
Security Act shall continue through September 30, 2004, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, and out of any money in the Treasury 
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and 
payments may be made pursuant to this authority through the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2004 at the level provided for such activities 
through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 22, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6255.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

Tyrone Clark, pro se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Clark appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) West 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Clark,*No. CR-91-310-JFM (D.Md. Jan. 17, 2001). To the extent that Clark presents new issues on appeal, we note that such claims are not properly presented in a motion for reduction of sentence under § 3582 and are not properly raised for the first time on appeal. *See*18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c); *United States v. Maxton,*940 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir.1991). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Wildermuth, Appellant.

(No. 148

— Decided August 13, 1949.)

*Mr. Rodney R. Blake,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Carroll V. Lewis,*for appellee.

*Mr. 8am J. Hetsler,*for appellant.

By the Court.

This cause is submitted on motion of the state to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court upon the ground that *308the bill of exceptions was not filed within the time prescribed by law.

The defendant was charged, tried and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. A motion for new trial was filed, which was overruled May 7, 1949. The bill of exceptions was not filed in the trial court until June 14, 1949. Thus it appears that the bill was filed more than 30 days after the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The period of time prescribed in-Section 13445-1, General Code, within which a bill of exceptions must be filed in a criminal case, is mandatory. Where the bill is not filed within the statutory time, the trial judge is without authority to allow and sign the bill. *Luff*v. *State,*112 Ohio St., 102, 146 N. E., 892; *Kenney*v. *State,*18 Ohio Law Abs., 76; *State*v. *McFarland,*36 Ohio Law Abs., 97; *State*v. *Kenney,*43 Ohio Law Abs., 63. It appearing that there are no errors complained of which can be considered in the absence of a bill of exceptions, the reviewing court has no alternative but to affirm the judgment. 2 Ohio Jurisprudence (App. Rev.), 1713, Section 920; *Luff*v. *State,*supra; *State*v. *Kenney, supra; Leitzy*v. *State,*6 Ohio Law Abs., 427.

An examination of the record shows that the defendant duly filed a notice of appeal and, also, within 30 days after sentence and judgment, filed in this court his motion for leave to appeal and a petition on appeal requesting the court to review the order and judgment of the trial court. Presumably the motion and petition were filed pursuant to Section 13459-4, General Code, which provides for such procedure after 30 days from sentence and judgment. No showing is- made which would require this court to give favorable consideration to the motion or petition, both of which are denied. The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Miller, P. J., Hornbeck and Wiseman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         164,301
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,542
<PP&E>                                       3,821,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                 282,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,839,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,353,801
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,762
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,448,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,839,263
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,099,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (45,891)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,145,540)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,145,540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,145,540)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>