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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1981 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute 

of General Medical Science for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical 

Science for fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1981 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NA4 TIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL 

5 SCIENCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Na9 tional Institutes of Health National Institute of General 

10 Medical Science for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $2,872,780,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40336 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. MELVIN OMAR ORTIZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-1024-ALL Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Melvin Omar Ortiz has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ortiz has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ortiz’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Ortiz’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40336

2 motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 190 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 190

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the exception 
 for de minimis payments by third party settlement organizations with 
 respect to returns relating to payments made in settlement of payment 
 card and third party network transactions, as in effect prior to the 
               enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

Mrs. Miller of West Virginia (for herself, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Ferguson, 
 Mr. Estes, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Schweikert, 
   Mr. Murphy, Mr. Kustoff, Mr. Smucker, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. 
  Wenstrup, Mr. LaHood, and Mr. Hern) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the exception 
 for de minimis payments by third party settlement organizations with 
 respect to returns relating to payments made in settlement of payment 
 card and third party network transactions, as in effect prior to the 
               enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act.

    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 ``Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FOR DE MINIMIS PAYMENTS AS IN EFFECT 
              PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 6050W(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Exception for De Minimis Payments by Third Party Settlement 
Organizations.--A third party settlement organization shall be required 
to report any information under subsection (a) with respect to third 
party network transactions of any participating payee only if--
            ``(1) the amount which would otherwise be reported under 
        subsection (a)(2) with respect to such transactions exceeds 
        $20,000, and
            ``(2) the aggregate number of such transactions exceeds 
        200.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 9674 of the American Rescue Plan Act.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T STEV EN BRO O K S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. W H I T S O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 17424 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 6 8 2 - J A MDA D ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t even B rook s, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en td i sm i ssi n g h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n al l eg i n g du e p ro cess vi ol a t i ons . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s mi s s a l u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 5 A f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m, 

# FI LED OC T 11 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 17424 2 R es ni ck v. H ayes , 2 1 3 F. 3 d4 4 3 , 4 4 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dth e a c tio n b e c au s e B r o o k s f a ile dto st at e s uffi ci entfa ct s t o sho w thata prot ec t ed l i berty or property i nt er es tw as at s ta k e . Se e Se rra n o v . Fra n c is , 3 4 5 F . 3 d1 0 7 1 , 1 0 7 8 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (du e p ro cess p r o te c tio n s “a d h e r e o n lyw h e n th e d is c ip lin arya c tio n im p lic a te s ap r o te c te dlib e rty i nt e r e s ti n s om e une xpe c t e d [ m a nne r ] ori m pos e s a n a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c ant ha r ds hi p on the i nm a t e i n r e l a t i on t o the or di naryi nc i de nt s of pr i s on l i f

e ” ( c i t a t i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . B rook s’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2009

p0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

137795

JOSEFINA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137795 COA: 285270 Van Buren CC: 01-048134-CK FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant-Appellant,

and

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 17, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1883 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1883

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
 Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Clerk for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
 Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Clerk for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF 
              THE CLERK FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Clerk for fiscal year 2024 
may not exceed $28,305,000.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 24, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 24 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-21, CP2015-26.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-30143 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50220

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Francisco Martinez-Castillo, 

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with

_____________

No. 20-50230

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Francisco Martinez-Castillo, also known as Francisco 

Castillo-Martinez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2020
No. 20-50220

c/w No. 20-50230

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-181-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-809-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Francisco Martinez-Castillo appeals his sentence of sixteen months of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence under

§ 1326(b)(2) based on his prior conviction, which increased the statutory 

maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release, is unconstitutional 

because his prior conviction is treated as a sentencing factor rather than an 

element of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a 

jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Martinez-Castillo concedes that the issue is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he 

seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for 

summary affirmance, urging that Martinez-Castillo’s argument isforeclosed.

The parties are correct that Martinez-Castillo’s argument is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 

497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rojas-Luna, 522 F.3d 502, 505-06 (5th 

Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance 

is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th

Cir. 1969), the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed balance sheet and the consolidated condensed statement
of operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>            1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                  5909
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           5529
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             7121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        20725
<PP&E>                                  18837
<DEPRECIATION>                          14306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          25256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   3813
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                                14113
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                              7257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            25256
<SALES>                                 18796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        18796
<CGS>                                   11526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           16096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2694
<INCOME-TAX>                            963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1731
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            1731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .44
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of Kent  Financial  Services,  Inc. for the three months ended March
31,  1998 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000316028
<NAME>                          KENT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                           9,124 
<SECURITIES>                     4,306
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,053
<ALLOWANCES>                         0    
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                14,483
<PP&E>                           1,677
<DEPRECIATION>                     435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  15,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            2,311
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                           101
<OTHER-SE>                      12,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    15,962
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 2,106
<CGS>                                0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 1,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  58
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    614
<INCOME-TAX>                       (40)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                654
<DISCONTINUED>                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                       654
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .64
        


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18.U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

       The undersignedofficer of FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") herebycertifies that:

|   | i.
the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the      Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
ii.
the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company.
/s/ Ray Reaves                              Ray ReavesChief Executive Officer andChief Financial OfficerAugust 2, 2005 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT TERRY LEA BUNCH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; VERA BENNETT; RUBY BAKER; GREG BAKER; PHYLLIS ALFORD; HAZEL No. 96-7089 KEITH; GEORGE ERWIN; EDDIE PRUITT; PAT SUMMEY; JOE LOFTIS; PATRICIA FUQUA; LEONA OWENS; JAMES PIERCE, III; MARCUS JIMISON, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-978-5-H) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: December 27, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Terry Lea Bunch, Appellant Pro Se.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Terry Bunch appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Bunch's appeal was not filed within thirty days of the district court's judgment order dismissing hiscomplaint, but was filed within thirty days of the court's order denying Bunch's motion to alter the court's judgment. Moreover, althoughBunch described his motion as a Rule 59(e) motion it is properly construed as a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), b ecause it was not filed within ten days of the court's original judgment. See In re Burnley , 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). Bunch's appeal is therefore timely only as to the order denying his motion, seeFed. R. App. 4, and our jurisdiction is limited to review of the district court's order denying Bunch's motion. Burnley , 988 F.2d at 3. Bunch's motion alleged that the district court's original order failedto address his claims with respect to a particular Defendant. In denying the motion, the district court explained that its decision held thatBunch suffered no violation of his constitutional rights, which effectively precluded liability on the part of every Defendant in this action.Moreover, the court concluded that Bunch's claims as to the remaining Defendant were speculative. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did notabuse its discretion in denying Bunch's motion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue , 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). Bunch's motion raised no new legal issues and the arguments asserted in his motion were both conclusory and speculative. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Bunch's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2