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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1663 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1663

   To require the Secretary of the Treasury to designate sectorially 
critical banking institutions, to require a higher level of regulatory 
       supervision of such institutions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of the Treasury to designate sectorially 
critical banking institutions, to require a higher level of regulatory 
       supervision of such institutions, 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 ``Critical Bank Review Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SECTORIALLY CRITICAL BANKING INSTITUTIONS.

    (a) Designation.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 
with the banking regulators, shall designate a banking institution as 
``sectorially critical'' if the banking institution is systemically 
important to a critical sector of the economy of the United States.
    (b) Supervision of Sectorially Critical Banking Institutions.--The 
appropriate Federal banking agency shall apply a higher level of 
regulatory supervision with respect to a sectorially critical banking 
institution, as determined appropriate by the appropriate Federal 
banking agency.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term 
        ``appropriate Federal banking agency''--
                    (A) has the meaning given that term under section 3 
                of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and
                    (B) means the National Credit Union Administration, 
                in the case of a credit union.
            (2) Banking institution.--The term ``banking institution'' 
        means--
                    (A) a depository institution (as defined under 
                section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act); and
                    (B) a credit union.
            (3) Credit union.--The term ``credit union'' means a 
        Federal credit union or a State credit union, as such terms are 
        defined, respectively, under section 101 of the Federal Credit 
        Union Act.
            (4) Federal banking agencies.--The term ``Federal banking 
        agencies'' means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
        System, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit 
        Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union 
        Administration.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Victor E. Grijalva, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WQN, Inc. certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of WQN, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;and  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: March 31, 2005      By: /s/ Victor E. Grijalva           Victor E. Grijalva,
No. 15,715.

#### State, ex rel. Haywood, Prosecuting Attorney, *v.*Earl.

Filed January 11, 1893.

From the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

*G. P. Maywood*and *R. P. Davidson,*for appellant.

*T. A. Stuart*and *J. R. Goffroth,*for appellee.

Coffey, C. J.

The record in this case is in the same condition as the record in the case of *State, ex rel. Haywood, Prosecuting Attorney,*v. *Earl,*133 Ind. 389, and upon the authority of that case the judgment of the Circuit Court herein is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**









**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report of Shiming U.S., Inc. on
      Form
      10-KSB of our report dated April 6, 2007 on our audits of the financial
      statements of Shiming U.S., Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and
      for the year then ended, which our reports are incorporated in the Form 10-KSB.




/s/
      Gruber & Company, LLC




Lake
      Saint Louis, Missouri 63367


April
      16,
      2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1937 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1937

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, Office of Worker's Compensation Program, Salaries and Expenses 
                         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, Office of Worker's Compensation Program, Salaries and Expenses 
                         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, 
              OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAM, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
Office of Worker's Compensation Program, Salaries and Expenses for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $117,601,000.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 30, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 04-11424

Summary Calendar

_______________

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOHN THOMAS TELLO,

DefendantThird Party PlaintiffAppellant,

VERSUS

HAROLD EAVENSON,

SHERIFF, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS, AND CUSTODIAN OF JOHN THOMAS TELLO,

Third Party DefendantAppellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

m 3:04-CV-1718-N

______________________________
2

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and STEWART,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

John Tello pleaded guilty in Texas state

court to two counts of indecency with a child

by exposure and one count of possession of

child pornography. Adjudication of guilt was

deferred, and Tello was sentenced to concurrent five-year terms of deferred-adjudication

probation.

When the state moved to revoke probation

and for adjudication of guilt, Tello removed

the case to federal court and sought habeas

corpus relief. The federal district court remanded and denied the habeas application.

Tello filed a notice of appeal and motions to

supplement the record on appeal and to stay

the state proceedings.

Although the district court referred to the

abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37 (1971), it correctly noted the lack of

federalsubject-matter jurisdiction. Moreover,

it is plain that “federal jurisdiction never existed.” Bogle v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 24

F.3d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 1994). The state

action against Tello was a continuation of his

state criminal action. See McClendon v. State,

784 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex App.SSHouston

[14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref’d) (holding that

deferred adjudication of guilt is “part and

parcel” of the original criminal plea proceeding); TEX. CODE CRIM. P. art. 42.12 § 5(b).

Except in rare cases involving federal defendants or the likelihood of equal-protection

problems not applicable here, there is no

jurisdictional basis for the removal of a state

criminal proceeding.

Because the district court lacked jurisdiction and did not “clearly and affirmatively” rely

on a basis for removal other than a lack of

jurisdiction, this court lacks jurisdiction to

review the remand order. See Heaton v.

Monogram Credit Card Bank, 231 F.3d 994,

997 (5th Cir. 2000); Bogle, 24 F.3d at 761; 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d). The remand order will

stand. The appeal is DISMISSED.

Absent jurisdiction, the district court’s

ruling on Tello’s habeas corpus application is

void. See Bogle, 24 F.3d at 762. All of

Tello’s motions are DENIED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1969 

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

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 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 Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 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 1969 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 

4 PREVENTION NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OC5 CUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH FOR FIS6 CAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Cen10 ters for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute 

11 for Occupational Safety and Health for fiscal year 2024 

12 may not exceed $336,300,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50507

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUELA HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-98-CR-71-2-JN

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

August 23, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuela Hernandez argues that the district court failed to

comply with several of the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at

the time that she entered her guilty plea, which rendered her

plea involuntary and the underlying plea agreement void. 

Hernandez argues that the district court failed to advise

her of the mandatory minimum penalty that could be imposed if her

offense was found to involve less than 500 grams of cocaine. 

This argument is frivolous because there is no mandatory minimum

penalty if a drug offense involves less than 500 grams of
No. 99-50507

-2-

cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). 

Hernandez further argues that the district court failed to

comply with Rule 11 because it erroneously advised her that a

three-year term of supervised release, rather than a four-year

term, could be imposed if the offense involved more than 500

grams but less than five kilograms of cocaine. Hernandez was

sentenced based on the offense involving more than five kilograms

of cocaine and was correctly advised that she could receive a

five-year term of supervised release if that amount of drugs were

attributed to her. A five-year term of supervised release was

imposed at sentencing. Hernandez’s substantial rights were not

affected by misinformation which had no relevancy at the time of

her sentencing. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 301-03

(5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). 

Hernandez argues that the district court further violated

Rule 11 by failing to explain to her the potential effect of

relevant conduct at sentencing. The district court was not

required, prior to accepting the guilty plea, to predict

Hernandez’s possible sentence under the guidelines or to advise

her of the effects of relevant conduct on her sentence. See

United States v. Hoster, 988 F.2d 1374, 1379 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The failure to discuss relevant conduct was not a violation of

Rule 11.

Hernandez argues that her trial counsel was ineffective

during plea negotiations, at her rearraignment, and at

sentencing. Hernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel were not presented to the district court and cannot be
No. 99-50507

-3-

addressed on direct appeal because the record has not been

adequately developed to consider the claims. See United States

v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363-64 (5th Cir 1998), cert. denied, 526

U.S. 1138 (1999). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Harlan *v.*Watson et al.

APPEAL from the Tipton Circuit Court.

*D. Moss*and *N. R. Overman,*for appellant.

*J. W. Robinson, J. Green,*and *D. Waugh,*for appellees.

Pettit, J.

This appeal has once before been dismissed, and the transcript, by leave, withdrawn, refiled, and submitted. It must again be dismissed for the same reasons as before. See 39 Ind. 393. Since the former dismissal there has been no change in the assignment of errors, nor has notice been given to the co-parties of the one appealing, as required by 2 G. & H. 270, sec. 551.

The appeal is dismissed, at the costs of the appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The following Financial Data Schedule should be read in conjunction with
Netegrity, Inc's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,942,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,026,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (238,563)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               329,953
<PP&E>                                       1,314,434
<DEPRECIATION>                               (455,271)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,967,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,760,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     33,333
<COMMON>                                       102,738
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,071,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,967,877
<SALES>                                      2,060,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,060,034
<CGS>                                          714,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  714,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,800,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,455,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,455,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,435,747)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
----

|   | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010, (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: August 11, 2010  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Paul O. Koether     |   |
| Paul O. Koether         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Bryan P. Healey     |   |
| Bryan P. Healey         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
EXHIBIT 32
----------

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  Quarterly  Report  of  First   Litchfield   Financial
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30,
2009 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  we, Joseph J. Greco,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of
the Company, and Carroll A. Pereira, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
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, as amended; and

      (2)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Joseph J. Greco                                 /s/ Carroll A. Pereira
-------------------                                 ----------------------
Joseph J. Greco                                     Carroll A. Pereira
President and Chief Executive Officer               Principal Financial Officer
November 13, 2009                                  November 13, 2009



The foregoing  certificate  is furnished  solely for purposes of complying  with
Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  for  no  other  purpose
whatsoever.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any
of the Company's  previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  that might incorporate the
Company's  future  filings,  including  this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in
part,  this  Certificate  shall not be  incorporated  by reference into any such
filings.


                                       59