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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1859 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1859

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Agency 
        Contributions and Related 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 House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Agency 
        Contributions and Related 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 SENATE, AGENCY 
              CONTRIBUTIONS AND RELATED EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Agency 
Contributions and Related Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$59,912,000.
                                 <all>
```
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20053

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EPIFANIO ENRIQUEZ-GUEVARA, also known as Heriberto Gil

Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-343-1

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Epifanio Enriquez-Guevara (Enriquez) pleaded guilty to

illegal reentry after deportation following conviction for an

aggravated felony and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment

and three years of supervised release. 

Enriquez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Enriquez contends that
No. 05-20053

-2-

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Enriquez

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

Enriquez also argues that the district court erred by

ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a

condition of supervised release. This claim is not ripe for

review on direct appeal. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428

F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed

(Jan. 9, 2006)(No. 05-8662). The claim is dismissed. See id. at

1102.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2214 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2214

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
   Agencies, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Capital 
              Repair and Restoration 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 Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
   Agencies, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Capital 
              Repair and Restoration 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 AGENCIES, 
              JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, CAPITAL 
              REPAIR AND RESTORATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, John F. 
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Capital Repair and Restoration 
for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $13,440,000.
                                 <all>
```
**HCC INDUSTRIES INC.COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(in thousands)(unaudited)**

 

 
|                                          |   | **For the Nine Months Ended** |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |   | **December 29,  2001**             |   | **December 30,  2000** |   |
| Earnings:                                     |   |                               |   |   |   |
|                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Earnings before taxes and extraordinary  item |   | $                                  | 4,722  |   | $ | 6,395 |   |
|                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Add: Fixed Charges*                           |   | 7,388                              |   | 8,122 |   |
|                                          |   | $                                  | 12,110 |   | $ | 14,517 |   |
|                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
|                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| * Fixed Charges:                              |   |                               |   |   |   |
|                                          |   |                               |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                              |   | $                                  | 7,388  |   | $ | 8,122 |   |
|                                          |   | $                                  | 7,388  |   | $ | 8,122 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges            |   | 1.64                               |   | 1.79 |   |

 

----

*The ratios ofearnings to fixed charges were computed by dividing earnings by fixedcharges.  For this purpose, “earnings”consist of earnings before taxes and extraordinary item plus fixed charges and“fixed charges” consist of interest expense and amortization of debt issuancecosts.

 

1

----
ex10_1.htm


Exhibit 10.1



















 


 


Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


25801 Industrial Boulevard, Suite B


Hayward, California 94545












July 8, 2015







Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC


440 North Wells, Suite 410


Chicago, IL 60654







Dear Sirs:







Reference is made to that certain Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 12, 2015, by and between ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation, (the “Company”), and LINCOLN PARK CAPITAL FUND, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (the “Investor”).  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement.


 


The Company and the Investor agree that effective as of the date hereof the Agreement is amended to replace Section 1(g) of the Agreement in its entirety as follows:


 


“(g)           “Available Amount” means initially Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) in the aggregate, which amount shall be reduced by the Purchase Amount each time the Investor purchases shares of Common Stock pursuant to Section 2 hereof.”


 


 




	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 
	 	
ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ May Liu   	 







Acknowledged and agreed:


 


LINCOLN PARK CAPITAL FUND, LLC


BY: LINCOLN PARK CAPITAL, LLC


BY: ALEX NOAH INVESTORS, INC.


 


 


 





	
By: 

	/s/ Jonathan Cope
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 SELECTICA, INC.

                            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 Selectica, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Bennion,
President and Chief Executive Officer (Interim) and 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:

       (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 result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: June 14, 2004



/s/STEPHEN BENNION
---------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bennion
President and Chief Executive Officer (Interim) and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Jonathan Arocho et al., as Coadministrators of the Estate of Juan Arocho, Deceased, Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 666]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 23, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 19, 2012, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to reargue their opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 19, 2012, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further

Ordered that the order dated January 23, 2012, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

Juan Arocho, the plaintiffs’ decedent, allegedly was injured on the defendant’s premises when he stepped onto an elevator, and a screw that was near discarded furniture on the floor of the elevator became embedded in his foot. He commenced this action, alleging that the defendant was negligent in maintaining its premises, and that its negligence caused his injuries. After Arocho died, the administrators of his estate were substituted as plaintiffs. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiffs thereafter moved to “reargue and reconsider,” and the Supreme Court denied that motion.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion *752for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of its motion, the defendant established, prima facie, that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in the elevator *(see Caruso v Barnard Coll.,*108 AD3d 685, 686 [2013]; *Perez v New York City Hous. Auth.,*75 AD3d 629, 630 [2010]). The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant had actual notice of a recurrent condition involving discarded debris in the elevator such that it could be chargeable with constructive notice of each specific occurrence of that condition *(see Danapas v Temco Serv. Indus., Inc.,*60 AD3d 614, 614-615 [2009]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 2,
2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods covered
by the Report.
 /s/ Paul J. van der WansemPaul J. van der WansemPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors (principal executive officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2094 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2094

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of 
Columbia, Federal Payment for the DC Courts, DC Court System 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 District of 
Columbia, Federal Payment for the DC Courts, DC Court System 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 DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE DC COURTS, DC COURT 
              SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for District of Columbia, 
Federal Payment for the DC Courts, DC Court System for fiscal year 2024 
may not exceed $74,400,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RANDY MURPHY, #260660, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0660-WS-C

CLARKE COUNTY JAIL, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

DONE this 13th day of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00660-WS-C Document 33 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Castalia Ortega et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 714]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for spoliation of evidence, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 16, 2006, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action to recover damages for spoliation, and searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Castalia Ortega.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and, upon searching the record, summary judgment is awarded to the defendant dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for spoliation of evidence insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Manuel Peralta.

We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that they have a cause of action to recover damages for spoliation of evidence *(see MetLife Auto & Home v Joe Basil Chevrolet,*1 NY3d 478 [2004], *affg*303 AD2d 30 [2002]; *Carella v Reilly & Assoc.,*22 AD3d 623 [2005]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action, and searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Castalia Ortega. Moreover, we exercise our authority to search the record and award summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for spoliation of evidence insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Manuel Peralta *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer,*31 AD3d 418 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur. *[See*11 Misc 3d 848 (2006).]
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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/ John K. GrelleName:
    
    John K. GrelleTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    May 16, 2011
#### The JEFFERSON COUNTY SAVINGS BANK v. CAPARRA GARDENS HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. Aurelio TIÓ and Zoé Vivoni, his wife, Intervenors.

Civ. No. 795-68.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Oct. 1, 1971.

Alberto R. Esteves, Tilley, Esteves & Rios, Hato Rey, P. R., for plaintiff.

Rodriguez-Maduro & Torres Vila, Santurce, P. R., for defendant.

J. M. Toro Nazario, Río Piedras, P. R., for applicants for intervention.

ORDER

FERNANDEZ-BADILLO, District Judge.

On June 17, 1971 Aurelio Tió and Zoé Vivoni filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene together with an Intervener’s Answer and Counterclaim in this action. On July 8, 1971 this Court heard oral argument by counsel on behalf of plaintiff and of applicants, both of whom subsequently filed briefs in support of their respective positions. The Court having considered the arguments and the evidence and being fully advised in the premises now makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Applicants for intervention hold a subordinated mortgage lien over the property which is the object of the second foreclosure in this action, said subordination having been agreed to by applicants as per Deed No. 19, dated June 5, 1971, before Notary Thomas C. Tilley.

2. Plaintiff holds a first mortgage as evidenced by Deed No. 147 of June 5, 1967, matter which is recognized in the aforementioned Deed No. 19.

3. By reason of said subordination, Applicants agreed and consented to hold a second mortgage over the property.

4. This situation exists entirely independent of this action.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. As holders of a second mortgage, applicants will not be bound by the result of this action within the meaning of Rule 24(a) (2) of the Federal Rules *179of Civil Procedure; Sutpehn Estates v. United States, 342 U.S. 19, 72 S.Ct. 14, 96 L.Ed. 19 (1951).

2. No common questions of law and fact exist between the main action and applicants’ claim. The main action is a mortgage foreclosure whereas applicant’s claim raises a question of mortgage priority which would be a new issue in the action. Rule 24 does not contemplate' intervention when an entirely new issue will be introduced. United States v. Bendix Home Appliances, D.C. N.Y., 10 F.R.D. 73; Bromley v. Sobol (D.Colo.1951) 101 F.Supp. 116; Schock-ett v. Bromley, 198 F.2d 257 (10th Cir., 1952).

3. This Court believes that to grant intervention at this stage of the proceedings would unduly delay and prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.

Applicants’ Motion for Leave to Intervene dated June 17, 1971, is hereby denied and Counterclaim filed on said date must be dismissed.
#### Judith Cirifalco et al, Respondents, v U.S.I. Building Services, Inc., Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 707]

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered May 9, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment.

Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on August 12, 2013, and filed in the Niagara County Clerk’s Office on August 22, 2013,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2234 

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

of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of Hearings and Appeals 

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 Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office 

of Hearings and Appeals 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 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, EXECU5 TIVE OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

6 AND APPEALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Executive OperVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:54 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2234.IH H2234

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2234 IH

1 ations, Office of Hearings and Appeals for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $15,222,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C.** **§1350**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in connection with the annual report of Cytomedix, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, I, Andrew S.
      Maslan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to the
      best
      of my knowledge and belief:




1. The
      Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, 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 Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company for said period.




*/s/Andrew
      S. Maslan*


Andrew
      S.
      Maslan




Chief
      Financial Officer


Date:
      February 26, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement has been provided to Cytomedix, Inc. and
      will
      be retained by Cytomedix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.