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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2080 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2080

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 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 the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 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 THE JUDICIARY, US 
              COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for The Judiciary, US Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $32,016,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Benton H Wilcoxon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Composite Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Composite Technology Corporation.

Date: August 8, 2005

By: /s/ Benton H Wilcoxon
    -------------------------
    Benton H Wilcoxon
    Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### Theresa Williams, Appellant-Respondent, v Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Boston, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[826 NYS2d 59]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered August 10, 2005, which granted the motion of defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Boston, Inc. to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211, for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied the motion insofar as premised upon the statute of limitations, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the denial of that part of the motion based on the statute of limitations, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Enterprise under either CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii) or CPLR 302 (a) (1). That a New York plaintiff or estate can recover damages in a wrongful death action does not establish that an “injury” was caused in New York State (see *Crimi v Elliot Bros. Trucking Co.,*279 F Supp 555 [SD NY 1968]). Nor does the residence of an injured party within the state suffice as a predicate for jurisdiction (see *Fantis Foods v Standard Importing Co.,*49 NY2d 317, 326 [1980]).

The car involved in the accident giving rise to this action was rented by Enterprise, a Massachusetts corporation, in Massachusetts to a Massachusetts resident. Enterprise has no offices in New York, does not transact business in New York, and does not contract to supply goods or services in New York. While its vehicles may be driven here, this contact is too attenuated to submit Enterprise to the jurisdiction of a New York State court, especially in this case, where although the alleged “journey” of plaintiff decedent and defendant decedent may have begun in the Bronx (as plaintiff claims, without any record support), the accident out of which plaintiffs claims arose occurred in Connecticut. That the rental agreement contemplated the possibility that the subject vehicle might be driven in “NY/NE” does not alter the jurisdictionally dispositive circumstance that there *265is no nexus between plaintiffs action and activity by defendant Enterprise in the forum state *(see McGowan v Smith,*52 NY2d 268 [1981]; *Lancaster v Colonial Motor Frgt. Line,*177 AD2d 152 [1992]; *Simmons v Gripple,*36 AD2d 590 [1971]).

We modify only to vacate the denial of that branch of Enterprise’s motion predicated on the statute of limitations. Without jurisdiction over Enterprise, the court was without authority to adjudicate whether the action against Enterprise was timely. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Javo Beverage Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KB for the year ended December 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Cody C.
Ashwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his
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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Richard A. Gartrell
---------------------------
Richard A. Gartrell
Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2007

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Javo Beverage Company, Inc. and will be retained by Javo Beverage
Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2361 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Contribution to the 

Asian Development 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 Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Contribution to the Asian Development 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 CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASIAN DEVELOP5 MENT 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 00:14 Apr 20, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2361.IH H2361

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2361 IH

1 able for Contribution to the Asian Development Fund for 

2 fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jeffrey Dee Steadman

, * From the 350th District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 8299

- D

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00034

- CR * February 19, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2215

NICOLE YVETTE WINSTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KEYBANK,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:22-cv-02800-TDC)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicole Yvette Winston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2215 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicole Yvette Winston appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action 

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Winston v. 

Keybank, No. 8:22-cv-02800-TDC (D. Md. filed Nov. 8, 2022 & entered Nov. 9, 2022). 

We deny Winston’s motion to seal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2215 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

IVETTE TEJEIRO
, Appellant,

v.

TOWER MSA PARTNERS, LLC and KRISTINE WILSON
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 20

- 2742

[ January 27, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; G. Joseph Curley, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2019

- CA

001023

- XXXX

- MB

.

Chad E. Levy of the Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A., Sunrise, for appellant.

Elizabeth W. Neiber ger and Ranjiv Sondhi of Bryant Miller Olive, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, G ERBER and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,106,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      52,180,287
<DEPRECIATION>                            (31,968,496)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,794,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     36,034,801
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,794,954
<SALES>                                      7,582,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,997,670
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,199,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,808,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,990,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,990,222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6807

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL SMITH, a/k/a Lil Mikey,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00677-GLR-21; 1:17-cv-02828-GLR)

Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because 

the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must 

be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 15, 2019. The notice 

of appeal was filed on May 18, 2019.

*

 Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
<PAGE>

                       MICRO BIO-MEDICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                      FORM 10-Q
                                   AUGUST 31, 1996
                                     (UNAUDITED)
                       ---------------------------------------
Exhibit 11
------------------------------

            Computation of Earnings per Common and Common Equivalent Share
          ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Nine Months Ended     Three Months Ended
                                     August 31,           August 31,
                                -----------------    ------------------

                                  1996      1995        1996      1995
                                 ------    ------      ------    ------
Earnings
--------

Net income                     $1,637,279  $ 794,872  $1,183,088 $1,016,384

Modified Treasury Stock Method
------------------------------
Incremental Income                 59,709    166,760      -          42,063
                                --------- ----------  ----------  ---------
Adjusted income                $1,696,988 $  961,632  $1,183,088 $1,058,447
                                --------- ----------  ----------  ---------
                                --------- ----------  ----------  ---------

Shares
------
Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding     4,387,181   3,640,242  4,928,358  3,676,592

Additional shares assuming
conversion of stock options
and warrants utilizing the
modified treasury stock method  1,319,905   1,446,615  1,061,335  1,435,046
                                ---------   ---------  ---------  ---------
Number of common and common
  equivalent shares             5,707,086   5,086,857  5,989,693  5,111,638
                                --------- ----------  ----------  ---------
                                --------- ----------  ----------  ---------

Earnings per common and common
  equivalent share                 $.30       $.19       $.20        $.21
                                --------- ----------  ----------  ---------
                                --------- ----------  ----------  ---------
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 2215

NICOLE YVETTE WINSTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. KEYBANK , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:22

- cv - 02800

- TDC )

Submitted : January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Nicole Yvette Winston , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2215 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Nicole Yvette Winston appeals the district court’s ord er dismissing her civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Winston v. Keybank , No. 8:22

- cv - 02800

- TDC (D. Md. file d Nov. 8, 2022 & entered Nov. 9, 2022 )

. We deny Winston’s motion to seal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-2215 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Terence Foster, Respondent, v Anthony P. Franco et al., Appellants.

[971 NYS2d 882]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered February 5, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained serious injuries to his head and brain as a result of the accident *(cf. Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]; *Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]). In light of the defendants’ failure to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit










EXHIBIT 10.1


AMENDED AND RESTATED NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY


	
				
	Cash Compensation1
	 

	Annual Director (non-chair) Retainer
	$
	25,000
	


	Annual Chair Retainer
	$
	50,000
	


	Board Meetings
	$
	0
	


	Committee Chair Retainer
	 

	Audit
	$
	10,000
	


	Compensation
	$
	10,000
	


	Nominating
	$
	5,000
	


	Committee Service Retainer
	 

	Audit
	$
	3,000
	


	Compensation
	$
	3,000
	


	Nominating
	$
	3,000
	







(1) Cash compensation is payable quarterly in advance.  Directors have the option to take Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units in lieu of cash compensation at the then fair market value.


	
			
	Equity Compensation (grants at time of annual meeting) 1,2

	Director (non-chair)
	 
	Restricted Stock Units with a value of $25,000 (vesting on the earlier of the one year anniversary of grant or the date of the next annual meeting)

	Chair
	 
	Restricted Stock Units with a value of $50,000 (vesting on the earlier of the one year anniversary of grant or the date of the next annual meeting)






(1) Non-employee directors who joined the Board in connection with the closing of the merger with Advanced Photonix, Inc., will receive the full annual equity grant on the date of the adoption of this Policy.  New directors appointed to the Board in the future other than, in connection with an annual meeting, shall receive a pro rata amount of the annual equity grants described above, which shall vest upon the next annual meeting.


(2) Non-employee directors with terms expiring at the 2016 and 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders shall be eligible to receive such equity grants beginning with their next reelection to the Board.
#### In the Matter of S & S Pub, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 464]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority dated May 3, 2012, as adopted the recommendation of an administrative law judge dated February 20, 2012, made after a hearing, sustaining two charges that the petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), and imposed a civil penalty in the sum of $6,000.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 provides, in relevant part, that: “[n]o person shall sell, deliver or give away or cause or permit or procure to be sold, delivered or given away any alcoholic beverages to . . . [a]ny person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years.”

“ ‘Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence’ ” *(Matter of Sherwyn Toppin Mktg. Consultants, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*103 AD3d 648, *934651 [2013], quoting *Matter of Albany Manor, Inc., v New York State Liq. Auth.,*44 AD3d 759, 759 [2007]). Substantial evidence is “[m]ore than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” *(300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). “ ‘The standard demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable’ ” *(Matter of Sherwyn Toppin Mktg. Consultants, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*103 AD3d at 652, quoting *Matter of Ridge Rd. Fire Dist. v Schiano,*16 NY3d 494, 499 [2011] [citations omitted]).

Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the respondent, the New York State Liquor Authority, sustaining two charges that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of JNJ Enters., Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*79 AD3d 750 [2010]; *Matter of S & S Pub, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*49 AD3d 654, 655 [2008]; *Matter of 294 Grand Ave. Grocery Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*12 AD3d 521 [2004]).

In addition, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of S & S Pub, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*49 AD3d at 655; *Matter of 294 Grand Ave. Grocery Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*12 AD3d at 522). Dillon, J.E, Roman, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
#### Gerald Schmitt, Appellant, v Sandra Schmitt, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[972 NYS2d 140]

— Motion for reargument or amendment denied. Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.