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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2005 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2005

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration Health Surveillance and Program Support 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, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration Health Surveillance and Program Support 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 HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH 
              SERVICES ADMINISTRATION HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AND PROGRAM 
              SUPPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration Health Surveillance and Program Support for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $128,830,000.
                                 <all>
```
BARRY L. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
                   Certified Public Accountant


1582 TULITA DRIVE                         OFFICE (702) 361-8414
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89123                   FAX NO.(702) 896-0278



To Whom It May Concern:                      February 15, 2000

     The firm of Barry L. Friedman, P.C., Certified Public
Accountant consents to the inclusion of their report of December
31, 1999, on the Financial Statements of Finders Keepers, Inc.,
as of December 31, 1999, in any filings that are necessary now or
in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Barry L. Friedman
    Barry L. Friedman
    Certified Public Accountant
Certification
Pursuant To


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant To


Section
906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of China Yida Holding, Co. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the twelve months ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lin
Yongxi, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the results
of operations of the Company.








/s/Lin
Yongxi


Lin
Yongxi


Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer







Dated:
March 24, 2008
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

AdStar, Inc. and Subsidiary
Marina Del Rey, California

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-88848) and Forms S-3 (No.s 333-60664, 333-81338,
333-91568, 333-109757 and 333-11943) of AdStar, Inc. and Subsidiary of our
report dated March 5, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements,
which appear in this Form 10-KSB.


/s/BDO Seidman, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 30, 2004
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1852 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Conference 

Committees 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 

Senate, Conference Committees 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, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 SENATE, CONFERENCE COMMITTEES FOR 

5 FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Senate, Conference Committees for fiscal year 

9 2024 may not exceed $3,408,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Provident Financial Group, Inc.'s 10-Q for September 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         244,300
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               140,625
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                57,683
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,710,022
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      5,894,578
<ALLOWANCE>                                     84,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,991,827
<DEPOSITS>                                   6,330,927
<SHORT-TERM>                                   655,916
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            248,528
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,014,654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<COMMON>                                        12,843
<OTHER-SE>                                     721,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               8,991,827
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                411,204
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               76,343
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,479
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               491,026
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             172,731
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             261,043
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          229,983
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   37,385
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                227,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                164,467
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     106,495
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,495
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.86
<LOANS-NON>                                     59,268
<LOANS-PAST>                                    17,536
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,557
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 47,904
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                75,907
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   38,462
<RECOVERIES>                                     9,739
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               84,569
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            84,569
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### The Detroit Post *&*Tribune Company v. Cornelius J. Reilly, Augustus H. Phelps and Louis Selling.

*Garnishment of judgment in action for libel.*

A recovery for libel does not furnish an indebtedness which can be garnished until judgment is entered on the verdict.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Detroit.

Submitted June 24.

Decided June 29.

Bill of interpleader. Complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

*C. A. Kent*for complainant.

*C. J. Reilly*for defendants.

Marston, C. J.

The defendant Phelps recovered in. the Superior Court of Detroit a verdict against the complainant on the 24th day of January, 1881, upon which judgment was entered March 12th. January 27th, 1881, a writ of garnishment was sued out of the "Wayne circuit by Louis Selling who claimed to be a creditor of Phelps, and such writ was on the same day served upon the complainant. February 11th, 1881, the complainant filed its disclosure, and on the 16th of February a demand of trial was filed by the garnishee plaintiff in such garnishee suit. March 10th, 1881, *460complainant was notified that the verdict above mentioned had been, on the 25th day of January, 1881, assigned to the defendant Reilly. The complainant thereupon filed its bill of interpleader in the Superior Court against these defendants, Reilly, Phelps and Selling, and an injunction was issued restraining the collection of such judgment and the prosecution of the garnishee suit. The injunction was after-wards set aside because the amount of such judgment had not been paid into court; but this having afterwards been done the injunction was renewed. A motion was afterwards made to dissolve the injunction and' an order made granting the motion, and from this order the complainant appealed.

The suit in which the verdict and judgment against the complainant were rendered was for a libel. In • such a case until a judgment was entered up on the verdict there was no indebtedness that could be garnisheed. *Hill v. Bowman*35 Mich. 191. As the garnishee proceedings were commenced after verdict but before judgment the complainant herein is not at all likely to be injured thereby.

The order appealed from will be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Franklin PELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30290.

D.C. No. CR-00-00018-EJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided June 1, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*610MEMORANDUM **

George Franklin Pelly appeals his 46-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea conviction for being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). Because Pelly waived his right to appeal his sentence, we lack jurisdiction and we dismiss.

Although neither party raised the issue of Pelly’s waiver of the right to appeal his sentence, we are required to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction sua sponte. *See United States v. Vences,*169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that when the defendant waives the right to appeal, appellate court lacks jurisdiction); *Abernathy v. Southern California Edison,*885 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir.1989) (recognizing that the appellate court is required to raise sua sponte issues concerning its jurisdiction). We review de novo the validity of a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal. *See United States v. Bolinger,*940 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir.1991).

In his plea agreement, Pelly waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, with the exception of claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, or a sentence imposed in violation of the law. Nothing in the record suggests that Pelly’s waiver of appeal is invalid, nor do Pelly’s claims on appeal fall within the exceptions to the waiver. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *See Vences,*169 F.3d at 613.

DISMISSED.

**

 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


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

.


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

#

"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

JODY C. SILVIO 09-00253-001

10558-003

09-30-2010

Paul Bradley Murray

✔

✔

78 63 months

09-30-2010

06-15-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

When initially sentenced, the defendant was sentenced for the instant offense, along with the offenses of conviction in

SDAL Cr. No. 08-00327. Count one of this case was not subject to grouping, and a multiple count adjustment (found at

U.S.S.G. Section 3D1.4) was used to determine the total offense level.

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 11:18:07 -06'00'

Case 1:09-cr-00253-CG-M Document 116 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2050 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2050

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Treasury, Cybersecurity Enhancement Account 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 Financial Services, and in addition to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Treasury, Cybersecurity Enhancement Account 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 
              TREASURY, CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Treasury, 
Cybersecurity Enhancement Account for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$25,208,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00039-CV

IN RE MATTHEW C. SHORT

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Based on our review of the substance of relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

and the fact that relator has not filed a record in this matter, we conclude that relator 

has not demonstrated himself entitled to the relief sought. See Walker v. Packer, 827 

S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (stating that the relator bears the burden of 

providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief); 

see also In re Toyota Motor Corp., No. 10-11-00050-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9185, at *4 

(Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 16, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Absent extraordinary 
In re Short Page 2

circumstances, mandamus ordinarily will not issue unless relator lacks an adequate 

remedy by appeal.”). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.1

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Denied

Opinion delivered and filed February 8, 2012

[OT06]

 

1 Relator’s mandamus petition has numerous procedural deficiencies. Relator’s petition lacks 

several of the requirements outlined in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. 

In particular, relator failed to include a statement of the case, and he did not disclose “the name of the 

judge, the designation of the court in which the judge was sitting, and the county in which the court is 

located . . . .” See id. at R. 52.3(d)(1)-(2). In addition, relator’s petition is not accompanied by “a properly 

authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding” or “a certified or 

sworn copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the 

underlying proceeding.” See id. at R. 52.7(a)(1)-(2). However, because of our disposition and to expedite 

this matter, we will implement Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these rules. See id. at R. 2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           17631
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 17631
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   17631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5777
<OTHER-SE>                                       11854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     17631
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4292
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 73142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (68850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (68850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (68850)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.126)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.126)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4263

JERMAINE MAURICE HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Benson E. Legg, District Judge.

(CR-00-331-L)

Submitted: August 16, 2002

Decided: September 3, 2002

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Christopher

J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jermaine Maurice Harris appeals his conviction following a jury

trial of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Harris was sentenced to sixtythree months in prison and three years of supervised release. We

affirm. 

Harris argues the district court erred when it gave a jury instruction

regarding flight. The district court’s decision to give the jury instruction and the content of the instruction are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1107 (4th Cir. 1992).

Generally, a consciousness of guilt may be deduced from evidence of

flight, and a jury’s guilty finding may be supported by consciousness

of guilt. United States v. Obi, 239 F.3d 662, 665 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 86 (2001). In order for a flight instruction to be

appropriate, the evidence must establish all the supporting inferences

that link the flight to consciousness of guilt for the crime charged. Id.

Thus, the evidence must establish that the defendant fled or attempted

to flee, and the evidence must support "inferences that (1) the defendant’s flight was the product of consciousness of guilt, and (2) his

consciousness of guilt was in relation to the crime with which he was

ultimately charged and on which the evidence is offered." Id.

We have reviewed the evidence in light of these considerations and

find no abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm Harris’ conviction.

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

2 UNITED STATES v. HARRIS