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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2324 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2324

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
    Programs, National Endowment for Democracy 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 Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
    Programs, National Endowment for Democracy 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 RELATED PROGRAMS, 
              NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Programs, 
National Endowment for Democracy for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$0.
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of Pacer International, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Donald C. Orris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Lawrence C. Yarberry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Donald C. Orris     
|Donald C. Orris         
|Chief Executive Officer 
|March 10, 2004          
|                        
|/s/ Lawrence C. Yarberry
|Lawrence C. Yarberry    
|Chief Financial Officer 
|March 10, 2004          



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacer International, Inc. and will be retained by Pacer International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 NORTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL J. GREEN, ) 

Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-0105-KD-N 

 ) 

CHERYL PRICE, et al., ) 

Respondents. ) 

ORDER 

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, 

the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. ' 636 and dated 

April 5, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. The Court finds that there is no basis 

for issuance of a Certificate of Appealability in this case. 

Further, after entry of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion 

for Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 32). This document adds nothing of consequence to his 

prior motion or to his Objection (Doc. 33) and, in light of this Order, is MOOT.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner=s Motion for Certificate of Appealability 

(Doc. 27) is DENIED and that Petitioner’s Second Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 

32) is DENIED as MOOT. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of May 2010.

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 KRISTI K. DUBOSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-00105-KD-N Document 34 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Flanders, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 355]

Stein, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered June 27, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of U/s to 4 years. Defendant was also ordered, as pertinent here, to pay a mandatory surcharge, as well as a fine and various fees. At the sentencing hearing, defendant sought to have the payment of the mandatory surcharge deferred until after he served his sentence, so that he could save any money accumulated in prison in order to be more self-sufficient upon his release. County Court denied the request and thereafter sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his request to defer the payment of the mandatory surcharge prior to imposing sentence. In our view, defendant did not demonstrate that the payment of the surcharge “ ‘would work an unreasonable hardship on defendant over and above the ordinary hardship suffered by other indigent inmates’ ” *(People v Kistner,*291 AD2d 856, 856 [2002], quoting *People v Abdus-Samad,*274 AD2d 666, 667 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d *1113862 [2000]; *see*CPL 420.40 [2]).* As to defendant’s contention that the agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive, we find no extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence, particularly in light of defendant’s considerable criminal history, which includes two previous convictions of driving while intoxicated *(see People v Williams,*101 AD3d 1174, 1174 [2012]; *People v Muniz,*93 AD3d 871, 876 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 965 [2012]).

McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 We note that defendant also filed a postjudgment motion seeking to defer the payment of the mandatory surcharge on different grounds than those argued prior to sentencing and County Court denied the motion. To the extent that defendant challenges the denial of the postjudgment motion on appeal, inasmuch as County Court’s order denying the motion is not part of the judgment of conviction, and defendant has only appealed from said judgment, the issue is not properly before us *(see People v Brown,*69 AD3d 466, 466 [2010]).
Exhibit 31.2  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Robert Reitz, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ForeverGreen Worldwide Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: April 10, 2007 /s/ Robert Reitz Robert Reitz Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2301 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2301

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  State, Administration of Foreign Affairs, Educational and Cultural 
                Exchange Programs 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 Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  State, Administration of Foreign Affairs, Educational and Cultural 
                Exchange Programs 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 STATE, 
              ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, EDUCATIONAL AND 
              CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of State, 
Administration of Foreign Affairs, Educational and Cultural Exchange 
Programs for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

     I, Andy LoCascio, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of
     Civitas BankGroup, Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K
     does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
     material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
     circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
     respect to the period covered by this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on
     Form 10-K ;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
     information included in this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K,
     fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
     operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
     presented in this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K;


Date: December 17, 2004


                                       By: /s/ Andy LoCascio
                                           ------------------------------
                                       Name:  Andy LoCascio
                                       Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


            Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, in his capacity as an officer of MicroIslet, Inc. (the "Company"), that,
to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.



Dated: April 2, 2007


            /s/ James R .Gavin III
            ----------------------
            James R. Gavin III, M.D., Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
            Officer
            (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: April 2, 2007


            /s/ Kevin A. Hainley
            --------------------
            Kevin A. Hainley, Interim Chief Financial Officer
            (Principal Financial Officer)
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NORMAN DOUGLAS DIAMOND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

AND

ZAIDA GOLENA DEL ROSARIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5088

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 13-cv-0292-SGB, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________ 

O R D E R

Norman Douglas Diamond filed only a confidential 

version of the attachments for his opening brief. The 

court notes that it appears that some of the information 

has been redacted. Under the court’s rules, Diamond 

must file both a confidential and a non-confidential version of the attachments. Fed. Cir. R. 28(d)(1). 

Case: 14-5088 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 06/19/2014
2 DIAMOND v. US

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 28(d)(1), Diamond must file 

both a confidential and non-confidential version of his 

attachments within 21 days of the date of this order. The 

confidential version must not contain any redactions. The 

non-confidential version must have the confidential 

matter deleted and each page from which the confidential 

matter has been deleted must bear a legend stating so in 

accordance with Fed. Cir. R. 28(d)(1)(B). Failure to do so 

will result in the removal of the confidential status of the 

attachments currently on the court’s docket. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s26

Case: 14-5088 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 06/19/2014
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2148 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2148

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
    Agencies, Small Business Administration, Business Loans Program 
         Account, Administrative 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 Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
    Agencies, Small Business Administration, Business Loans Program 
         Account, Administrative 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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, BUSINESS LOANS 
              PROGRAM ACCOUNT, ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Small Business Administration, Business Loans Program Account, 
Administrative Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$155,150,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Brian Horst, Plaintiff, and Georgie Horst, Individually and as Parent and Guardian of Jennifer A. Ham and Another, Appellant-Respondent, v Gerald J. Glogowski, Respondent, and John T. Nothnagle, Inc., Doing Business as Nothnagle Realtors, Appellant.

[967 NYS2d 863]

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (James P. Punch, A.J.), entered March 14, 2012. The order granted the cross motion of defendant Gerald J. Glogowski for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint against defendant Gerald J. Glogowski and denied the motion of defendant John T. Nothnagle, Inc., doing business as Nothnagle Realtors, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Lindley, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00355-CV

P. B., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-19-008234, THE HONORABLE JESSICA MANGRUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant P.B. has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant

appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: August 25, 2021
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00020 - CR

CECIL EARL SCARBROUG H APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Cecil Earl Scarbrough pled guilty before a jury, which after hearing evidence on the issue of punishment , assessed his sentence at twenty years’ confin e ment with no fine

. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.
W e affirm.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in h er professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief
and motion m eet the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. We gave A ppellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has not filed one. The State also has not filed a brief. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to underta ke an independent examination of the record

. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d3

684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER , JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: January 6 , 201 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2151 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2151

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
              Agencies, US Tax Court 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 Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
              Agencies, US Tax Court 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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, US TAX COURT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, US 
Tax Court for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $51,515,000.
                                 <all>
```