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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1850 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1850

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
    Offices of the Majority and Minority Whips 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, 
    Offices of the Majority and Minority Whips 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 SENATE, OFFICES OF 
              THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY WHIPS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Offices of the 
Majority and Minority Whips for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$3,455,424.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2121 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

Federal Citizen Services Fund, 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 Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, Federal Citizen Services Fund, 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 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, FEDERAL CITIZEN 

5 SERVICES FUND, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:03 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2121.IH H2121

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2121 IH

1 able for Independent Agencies, Federal Citizen Services 

2 Fund, for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $55,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1882 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1882

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
   Representatives, Committee on Appropriations 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, Committee on Appropriations 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, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$23,112,971.
                                 <all>
```
12157.

#### ANDERSON *v.*THE STATE.

Tie only question raised by the motion for a new trial being whether the evidence authorized the verdict, and there being evidence to support the verdict, the judgment of the trial judge overruling the motion must be affirmed.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Washington — Judge Sutton. December 13, 1920.

*F.*W. *Gilbert, F. H. Colley, Hugh E. Combs,*for plaintiff in error. *George M. DuBose, solicitor,*contra.

*635Luke, J.

This case is here for review upon the ground that the evidence does not authorize the verdict. Upon conflicting evidence the jury convicted the defendant, Anderson, of having in his possession a pistol, not at his home or place of business, within the meaning of the statute (Park’s Ann. Penal Code, § 348(a)), without first having procured a license from the ordinary. There being evidence to support the verdict, and the verdict being approved by the trial judge, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial must be

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and*Bloodworth, *J., concur.*
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been appealed to 

the Supreme Court:

 

1. KSS One, LLC

 v. Henrico County, Virginia, et al.

 Record No. 0294-22-2

 Opinion rendered by Judge Raphael on

 March 7, 2023

2. Jaron Devontae Nottingham

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1006-21-1

 Opinion rendered by Judge Huff on

 March 21, 2023

3. William Ezell Taylor, Jr.

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0433-22-2

 Opinion rendered by Judge Lorish on

 March 28, 2023

4. Keefe Butler

 v. Martha Ann Thomas Stegmaier, etc., et al.

 Record No. 0584-22-2

 Opinion rendered by Judge Athey on

 March 28, 2023

5. Edgar Alexander Diaz-Urrutia

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0502-22-4

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

 April 4, 2023

6. Travis Alexander Bland Henderson, s/k/a

Travis Alexander Bland-Henderson

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1359-21-2

 Opinion rendered by Judge Raphael on

 April 11, 2023

7. United Services Automobile Association

 v. Bruce A Estep

 Record No. 0391-22-1

 En banc opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on

 April 11, 2023

8. Clifton Haley Harper, Jr.
 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0453-22-4

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

 April 11, 2023
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Jacques Lamar Walker

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1211-20-4

Opinion rendered by Judge Russell

 on April 5, 2022

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed by opinion rendered on June 1, 2023

(220378)

2. Shemon Devonte Clayton

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1246-21-3

Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee

 on September 13, 2022

 Refused (220645)

3. Shemon Devonte Clayton, s/k/a, etc.

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1247-21-3

Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee

 on September 13, 2022

 Refused (220645)

4. Diallo Olumnminji Turner

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1103-21-2

Opinion rendered by Judge Beales

 on September 20, 2022

 Refused (220673)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA CONE SELENSKY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 10-0041-WS-C

 )

JUDGE MATTHEW GREEN, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on pro se plaintiff Linda Cone Selensky’s Motion to

File Restraining Order (doc. 1). The gravamen of the Motion is that plaintiff seeks to have this

Court enjoin defendant, Mobile Municipal Court Judge Matthew Green, from enforcing orders

against her in what are apparently landlord-tenant proceedings “to allow [her] the extra time that

is needed to be able to find a proper home for [her] and [her] animals.” (Doc. 1, at 2.)

Plaintiff’s Motion is improper at this time for four reasons. First, she has failed to file a

complaint, as is necessary to commence a civil action in federal court. See Rule 3, Fed.R.Civ.P.

(“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”). Second, she has failed to

identify any basis on which she contends that federal jurisdiction exists. See Rule 8(a)(1),

Fed.R.Civ.P. (a pleading that states a claim for relief must include “a short and plain statement of

the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction”). Third, plaintiff has neither paid the $350 filing fee

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Fourth,

plaintiff has not complied with the specific requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., for

issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Motion is denied, without prejudice to her ability to

renew such Motion if and when she corrects these defects.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00041-WS-C Document 2 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 1
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: Leslie Demond Williams v. The State of Texas Appellate case number: 01 - 1 7 - 00 6 46 - CR 01 - 1 7 - 00648 - CR Trial court case number: 1 6 - CR - 33 66 1 7 - CR - 00 6 0 Trial court: 405 th District Court of Galveston County Appellant, Leslie Demond Williams, timely filed a notice of appeal of a judgment of conviction in three trial court case numbers: No. 16 - CR - 3366, No. 16 - CR - 3367, and No. 1 7 - CR - 0060 . The Clerk of this Court docketed the appeals in three separate appeals: No. 01 - 17 - CR - 00646 - CR, No. 01 - 17 - CR - 00647 - CR, and No. 01 - 17 - CR - 648 - CR. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 12.1, 12.2. Appellant’s brief in each appe al was due to be filed on November 2, 2017. See id. 38.6(a). On November 20, 201 7 , appellant filed a motion to extend time in only one appeal: No. 01 - 17 - 00647 - CR. We granted the motion and extended the time to file appellant’s brief to December 20, 2017. On December 18, 2017, appellant filed, in No. 01 - 17 - 00647 - CR, a second motion to extend time to file his brief. We granted that motion and extended the time to file appellant’s brief to January 19, 2018, with no further extensions. Although his motion s referenced all three trial court case numbers, appellant has not filed a motion to extend time in No. 01 - 17 - 00646 - CR or No. 01 - 17 - 00648 - CR. Nevertheless, we extend the time to file appellant’s brief in No. 17 - 00646 - CR and No. 01 - 17 - 00648 - CR to January 19 , 2017, with no further extensions . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 . 6(d).It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: December 2 1 , 2017
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2022

No. 04-22-00474-CR

EX PARTE Wilmar Geovani Sambrano GUEVARA

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10373CR

Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 15, 2022, we ordered the County Clerk of Kinney County to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing all items required to be in the clerk’s record, including 

orders signed on July 27, 2022 and a copy of the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right 

to appeal, by September 6, 2022. On August 30, 2022, the county clerk filed a notification of 

late record indicating he was waiting for the trial court to prepare the certification. We therefore 

order the trial court to prepare a certification of defendant’s right of appeal in order for the 

county clerk to file the supplemental clerk’s record containing the required items by September 

6, 2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of September, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3875

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Carl R. Todd, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 23, 2012

Filed: June 25, 2012

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Carl Todd challenges a money judgment in an

order of forfeiture issued by the district court1

 after he pled guilty to conspiracy to

commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen property. His

counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967).

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court committed no error in

issuing the order of forfeiture. See United States v. Molina, 172 F.3d 1048, 1057 (8th

Cir. 1999) (it is well-established that member of conspiracy is responsible for all

reasonably foreseeable acts or omissions of others in furtherance of conspiracy); see

also United States v. Van Nguyen, 602 F.3d 886, 903 (8th Cir. 2010) (factual findings

relating to forfeiture are reviewed for clear error; forfeiture itself is reviewed de novo). 

We also conclude that the district court did not plainly err in ordering restitution. See

United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539, 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (where defendant

does not challenge restitution order at sentencing, restitution order is reviewed for

plain error); United States v. Moser, 168 F.3d 1130, 1132 (8th Cir. 1999) (unless

defendant objects to specific factual allegation contained in presentence report, court

may accept that fact as true for sentencing purposes).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the written

judgment contains a typographical error that is inconsistent with the district court’s

oral pronouncement of Todd’s sentence, and we therefore instruct the district court to

modify the written judgment to reference “monthly payments of either $500 or 10

percent of gross income, whichever is greater, while on supervision.” See United

States v. Mayo, 642 F.3d 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2011) (when oral sentence and written

judgment conflict, oral sentence controls). 

We affirm the judgment as modified, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 AdStar, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony J.
Fidaleo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Anthony J. Fidaleo
----------------------
Anthony J. Fidaleo
Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to AdStar, Inc. and will be retained by AdStar, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Opinion issued June 18 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 24
- 00370
- CR

——————————— IN RE RONALD GAYTON , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Ronald Gayton, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s alleged failure to either recuse himself or refer the motion to the regional presiding judge after relator filed his second motion to recuse. 1

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. Ronald Gayton , cause number 19414 , pending in the 21st District Court of Washington County, Texas, the Honorable J.D. Langley, visiting judge , presiding

.2

Relator filed the motion to recuse and this petition for writ of mandamus pro

se despite stating in the mandamus petition that he is represented by defense counsel, Zoe Coufal. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation in the trial court or the appellate court. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Because the issues raised in this petition concern his criminal proceeding in which he is represented by counsel, his petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for r eview. See id. ; In re West , 419 S.W.3d 312, 312

– 13 (Tex. App.

—

Amarillo 2009, orig. proceeding). 2 We deny the petition. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).

2 Relator has also attached to his petition a copy of the trial court’s order on the second motion to recuse, indicating that the judge declined to recuse himself and referred the mot ion to the Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial Region for assignment of a judge to hear the motion.
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. (CRM) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence Fensterstock, Chief
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, to
the best of my knowledge: (1)
The Report
  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  By:
/s/
Lawrence
  FensterstockLawrence FensterstockChief Financial OfficerAugust 14,
  2006 22
To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids DR. KELVIN

To: From:

THE MOLE www.nist.gov/kids

To: From:

THE MOLE www.nist.gov/kids

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids PROFESSOR SECOND

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids PROFESSOR SECOND

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids METER MAN

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids METER MAN

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids DR. KELVIN
To: From:

MONSIEUR KILOGRAM www.nist.gov/kids

To: From:

MONSIEUR KILOGRAM www.nist.gov/kids

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids MS. AMPERE

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids MS. AMPERE

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids CANDELA

To: From:

www.nist.gov/kids CANDELA

To: From:

MAJOR UNCERTAINTY www.nist.gov/kids

To: From:

MAJOR UNCERTAINTY www.nist.gov/kids
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Simone Thomas, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 95]

Judgement, Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret Clancy, J.), rendered January 20, 2006, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing her to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

With respect to the conviction of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.30 (1), the accusatory instrument was facially sufficient, and the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 *446NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant’s telephone call to the victim contained a death threat that placed the victim in reasonable fear for her safety (see *People v Limage,*19 Misc 3d 395, 400 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2008]; *People v Tiffany,*186 Misc 2d 917, 920-921 [Crim Ct, NY County 2001]).

With respect to the conviction relating to Penal Law § 240.30 (2), defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument is without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No.s 333-56576, 333-64246, 333-32666, 333-103622, 333-116449, 333-122708 and 333-126306) of our report dated October 1, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Selectica, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the three year period ended March 31, 2007.



|                          |  | 
|------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Armanino McKenna, LLP |  | 

San Ramon, California

October 1, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Carlos Rivera, Petitioner, v Martha Luft et al., Respondents.

[969 NYS2d 924]

— Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to release the petitioner from the Suffolk County Correctional Facility, where he is in custody pursuant to an order of commitment of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Luft, J.).

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented, the petitioner is not entitled to relief in a habeas corpus proceeding *(see*CPLR art 70; *People ex rel. Vogelfang v Perez,*66 AD3d 1052 [2009]; *People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent,*67 AD2d 587 [1979], *affd*50 NY2d *491901 [1980]; *cf. People ex rel. Bedell v Ercole,*71 AD3d 801 [2010]). Balkin, J.E, Hall, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 13.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MATERIALISE NV (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Johan Albrecht, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: April 28, 2016



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Johan Albrecht     
|    |  | Johan Albrecht         
|    |  | Alfinco BVBA           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer