alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stuart Todd HEINRICHS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-36182.

D.C. No. CV-96-01604-OMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*485Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 2001.*

Decided May 10, 2001.

Before McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Stuart Heinrichs appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Heinrichs was convicted in state court on three counts involving the anal penetration of his three-month-old daughter: sexual penetration with a foreign object, criminal mistreatment in the first degree and assault in the fourth degree. On appeal, Heinrichs asserts that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence.

The district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition is reviewed *de novo. See Dows v. Wood,*211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000). A properly preserved sufficiency of the evidence challenge is also reviewed *de novo. See United States v. Munoz,*233 F.3d 1117, 1129 (9th Cir.2000) (citing *United States v. Tucker,*133 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.1998)). “[A]ll reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the government, and any conflicts in evidence are to be resolved in favor of the [fact finder’s] verdict.”1*See United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela,*231 F.3d 1198, 1201-02 (9th Cir.2000) (citing *United States v. Laykin,*886 F.2d 1534, 1539 (9th Cir.1989)).

Where the district court fails to provide the basis of its decision, we independently review whether the state court erred.2*See Delgado v. Lewis,*223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2000). “There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational [fact finder] could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” *Munoz,*233 F.3d at 1129 (citation omitted).

After independently reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crimes charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. *See Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.

1

. This case was tried before a judge rather than a jury.

2

. "[I]ndependent review, however, is not a full, de novo, review of the claims, but remains deferential because the court cannot grant relief unless the state court’s result is not in keeping with the strictures of the AED-PA.” *Palazzolo v. Gorcyca,*244 F.3d 512, 516 (6th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAMON DADE, a/k/a Johnny,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:99-cr-00425-JCC-1; 1:11-cv-00665-JCC)

Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Dade, Appellant Pro Se. Alison Lynn Anderson, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Dade seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion as 

successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). 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 motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Dade has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RCSB
FINANCIAL, INC'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MAY 31,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000840068
<NAME> RCSB FINANCIAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                          75,916
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,767
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,171
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,544,612
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,524,609
<LOANS>                                      2,223,044
<ALLOWANCE>                                     26,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,104,367
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,342,879
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,081,872
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            222,814
<LONG-TERM>                                    144,225
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,538
<OTHER-SE>                                     297,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,104,367
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 92,581
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               57,651
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   222
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               150,454
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              51,558
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,852
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           65,602
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    8,092
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  85
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 62,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,457
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      17,928
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,928
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.51
<LOANS-NON>                                     18,968
<LOANS-PAST>                                     6,313
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                28,190
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   12,239
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,294
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               26,337
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            26,337
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Internet
Initiative Japan Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that thE Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 3, 2005

                                        INTERNET INITIATIVE JAPAN INC.

                                           /s/ Akihisa Watai
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Akihisa Watai
                                        Title: Director, Chief Financial Officer
                                               and Chief Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1925 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1925

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Youth Build 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 Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Youth Build 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 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 
              EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, YOUTH BUILD FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
Employment and Training Administration, Youth Build for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $89,534,000.
                                 <all>
```
11756.

#### BOATWRIGHT *v.*THE STATE.

Misjoinder of offenses in an indictment is a defect of which the defendant can take advantage only by a demurrer specifically pointing out the defect.

The demurrer was too indefinite for consideration where an indictment charging *“*the offense of felony, for that ” the accused “ did distill, manufacture, and make, and did unlawfully have, possess, and control, alcoholic” and other liquors designated in the prohibition law, was demurred to -on the ground that “ a felony and a misdemeanor ” were charged in the same count, the demurrer failing to state the specific felony and the specific misdemeanor charged in the indictment.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Indictment for manufacture of liquor, etc.; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. July 29, 1920.

The indictment charged Boatwright with “the offense of felony, for that the said accused, on the 20th day of June in the year 1920, . . did distill, manufacture, and make, and did unlaw*68fully have, possess, and control, alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, malted, and mixed liquors and other beverages, a part of which was alcoholic, contrary to the laws, ” etc.

*Hoijt II. Whelchel, Dowling £ Askew,*for plaintiff in error.

*Clifford E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The demurrer in this case alleged that the indictment contained but one count, that in that count the accused was charged with committing a felony and a misdemeanor, and that “ a felony and a misdemeanor cannot be charged in the same count in an indictment.” “Demurrer, being a critic, should itself be free from imperfection. ” This demurrer did not point out what specific felony and what specific misdemeanor was charged in the indictment; did not “put its finger on the exact point of weakness.” In *Field*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*571 (1), (55 S. E. 502), it was held: “ A demurrer to an indictment on the ground that it charges the accused with two distinct offenses of an entirely different nature in one and the same count is too indefinite to be considered, unless the demurrer discloses to what offenses of a dissimilar nature reference is intended to he made. ” In *Wells*v. *State,*118 *Ga.*556 (45 S. E. 443), it was held: “A demurrer to an indictment, which alleges that separate and distinct offenses, for which separate and distinct penalties are provided, are improperly joined therein, without indicating what such separate and distinct offenses are, presents no question for determination by the court.” See also *Gatlin*v. *State,*18 *Ga. App.*9 (6) (89 S. E. 345); *Sowell*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*105 (1) (54 S. E. 196).

Under these rulings the demurrer in this case was fatally defective, and was properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                     CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

TO: Global Diversified Industries, Inc.

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. for the
year ended April 30, 2003 of our report dated July 11, 2003 and contained in the
Registration Statement No. 333-113009 of Global Diversified Industries, Inc.
Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933 insofar as such report relates to the
financial statements of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. for the years ended
April 30,2003 and 2002.

                                    /s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Russell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP

McLean, Virginia
August 16, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77016-77017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel Center for Biomaterials and 
Biofabricated Platforms (2015/05).
    Date: March 3-5, 2015.
    Time: 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: College Park Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 3501 
University Blvd., East Hyattsville, MD 20783.
    Contact Person: John K. Hayes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3398, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b9b0a8b4a2bb91bcb0b8bdffbfb8b9ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f99198809c8a93b994989095d7979091d79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 77017]]


    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel, P41 MRI center (2015/05).
    Date: March 23-25, 2015.
    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Marriott Courtyard San Francisco Downtown, 299 2nd St., 
San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Contact Person: Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Democracy Two Building, Suite 957, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-4773, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e7466617b7c4e636f67622060676620696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec968483999eac818d8580c2828584c28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
David Clary
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30004 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7175

In Re: ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-12)

Submitted: November 24, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2004

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert William Puckett, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert W. Puckett petitions this court for a writ of

mandamus directing the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. Our review of the district court docket

sheet in that action reveals that the district court entered a

final order on April 22, 2003, denying relief on Puckett’s § 2255

motion. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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
#### Commonwealth *v.*David May, et al. Same *v.*Lott, et al. Same *v.*Brown & Kennedy.

Criminal Law — Indictment—Grand Juror.

It is error in the court to set aside an indictment because of the fact that one of the grand jurors by whom it was returned was under the statute incompetent.

Appeals.

The statute limiting the right of appeal to the court of appeals to cases where the amount involved in the judgment is less than fifty dollars, has no application to criminal cases.

APPEAL PROM THE HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 6, 1876.

*T. E. Moss, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The court below erred in setting aside the indictments in these prosecutions. The fact that one of the grand jurors by whom they were returned was, under the statute, incompetent, did not authorize that action. *Commonwealth v. Patrick,*Mss. Opinion; *Commonwealth v. Smith, et al.,*10 Bush 476.

This court has jurisdiction of these appeals. The penalty prescribed by the statute for selling or giving intoxicating liquor to a minor without proper authority is a fine of fifty dollars. Section I, Art. 22, Chap. 28, General Statutes, provides that “the court of appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over the final orders and judgments of all other courts of this commonwealth, unless otherwise provided herein.” Sec. 2, of the same article and chapter, provides that, “no appeal shall be taken to' the court of appeals from a judgment for the recovery of money or personal property, if the value in controversy be less than fifty dollars, exclusive of costs.”

We have, heretofore, expressed the opinion and acted upon the idea that these provisions did not apply in criminal proceedings; but upon reconsideration, we are convinced that the language of Sec. 1 is comprehensive enough to embrace all proceedings, criminal and penal as well as civil.

Judgment *reversed.*
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1432 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the deductibility of charitable contributions to certain 

organizations for members of the Armed Forces. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 1432 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘VSO Equal Tax Treat3 ment Act’’ or as the ‘‘VETT Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEDUCTIBILITY OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS 

5 TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS FOR MEMBERS 

6 OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(c) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after para9 graph (5) the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(6) An organization described in section 

11 501(c)(19) that is a federally chartered corpora12 tion.’’. 

13 (b) PERCENTAGE LIMITATION.—Section 

14 170(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

15 amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (viii), by 

16 adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (ix), and by inserting 

17 after clause (ix) the following new clause: 

18 ‘‘(x) an organization described in sec19 tion 501(c)(19) that is a federally char20 tered corporation,’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 1432 RDS

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned,Michael P. McGee, the Chief Financial Officer of International RectifierCorporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifiesthat, to his knowledge:

(i)                                     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in theReport.

Dated: November 10, 2006
|   | /s/ Michael P. McGee                         |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael P. McGee                             |
|   | Executive Vice President and                 |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

A signed original of the written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to International Rectifier Corporation and willbe furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

1

----