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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2060 

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

Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Enforcement 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 Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Enforcement 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 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, INTERNAL REV5 ENUE SERVICE, ENFORCEMENT FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue ServVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:36 Apr 18, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2060.IH H2060

sspencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2060 IH

1 ice, Enforcement for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $4,860,000,000. 

Æ 


sspencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**











Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
      (No. 333-120141) on Form S-8 of Cytomedix, Inc. of our reports dated
      February 23, 2007, with respect to the balance sheets of Cytomedix, Inc. as
      of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related statements of operations,
      stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
      period ended December 31, 2006, management’s assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
      December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting as of December 31, 2006, which appear on pages 24 and 53 in this
      annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
      2006.








/s/
      L J
      Soldinger Associates, LLC





Deer
      Park, Illinois


February
      23, 2007
#### Louatrice HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-20584.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 2, 2008.

*742Shalanda Deshon Moore, Willie & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lars Hagen, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Louatrice Henderson appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of her employment discrimination and retaliation claims against Defendant-Appellee University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“M.D. Anderson”) and one of its supervisory managers, Anne Speed. We affirm.

Henderson is a black female, approximately 50 years of age, who had worked in M.D. Anderson’s Human Resources Department since 1997 when she saw her job eliminated in a far-reaching departmental reorganization. She thereafter failed to obtain renewed employment with M.D. Anderson in its rehiring and reassignment program for those similarly situated to Henderson as a result of that reorganization. She was, however, considered, along with others, through that comprehensive process which included interviews with and recommendations by a three-person interview committee comprising a black female superior and two other M.D. Anderson employees who were older than Henderson. Among the similarly situated employees who were rehired or reassigned were several black females, and among those who, like Henderson, were not were several white employees, including some younger than Henderson.

The recommendations of the interview committee were forwarded to Speed who, in almost every instance, followed the committee’s recommendations. In Henderson’s case, the black female member of the interview committee testified that Henderson had not interviewed well and was lacking in other particulars.

After extensive consideration of the large volume of data assembled in the *743record of this case and due consideration of the positions advanced by the opposing parties, the district court filed a comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order in which the court analyzed the situation and ultimately granted the summary judgment motions of M.D. Anderson and Speed, dismissing all of Henderson’s claims not previously eliminated.

We have now reviewed in detail the record on appeal and the briefs filed by counsel for the parties, as a result of which we are satisfied that the rulings and holdings of the district court from which Henderson appeals should be affirmed for essentially the reasons set forth by the court in its opinion.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2581 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2581

    To prohibit Federal funds from being awarded or otherwise made 
         available to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Crane, Mr. Norman, 
  Mr. Gosar, and Mr. Good of Virginia) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit Federal funds from being awarded or otherwise made 
         available to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accountability for Lawless Violence 
In our Neighborhoods Act'' or the ``ALVIN Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING WITH RESPECT TO MANHATTAN 
              DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

    (a) Prohibition on Federal Funding.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, no Federal funds may be awarded or otherwise made 
available to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.
    (b) Recision and Repayment of Federal Funding.--The unobligated 
balances of all amounts allocated for or otherwise made available to 
the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is hereby rescinded, and the 
Attorney General shall take such steps as may be necessary and 
practicable to require the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to 
reimburse the Federal Government for all amounts expended for such 
Office after the date of January 1, 2022.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED
ENTIRELY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       9,697,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,962,436
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,237,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,380,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,237,923
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,692,820
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               516,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,063,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,063,204
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,063,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Patrick D. Barrett, Individually and as a Limited Partner of Delma Associates, LP, Appellant, v Kevork Toroyan et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[825 NYS2d 911]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered April 26, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of other action pending, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendant’s motion, the complaint reinstated and consolidated with the other action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The two actions, while not duplicative, do arise under the same contract and are otherwise sufficiently related to warrant their consolidation. The doctrine against “claim splitting,” invoked by defendant, does not apply since plaintiff could not have known of the claim made in the second action until after commencement of the first *(see*Siegel, NY Prac § 220, at 364 [4th ed]). The action is not appropriate for pre-answer summary judgment. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Sullivan, Nardelli, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3653 

To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to permit certain 

annuitants of the retirement programs of the United States Park Police 

and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the 

adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants would otherwise 

be entitled as a result of the conversion of members of the United 

States Park Police and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division 

to a new salary schedule under the amendments made by such Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 13, 2006 

Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. ALLEN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 

to permit certain annuitants of the retirement programs 

of the United States Park Police and United States 

Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants 

would otherwise be entitled as a result of the conversion 

of members of the United States Park Police and United 

States Secret Service Uniformed Division to a new salary 

schedule under the amendments made by such Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3653 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Law Enforce3 ment Pension Adjustment Equity Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADJUSTMENTS IN PENSION BENEFITS 

5 FOR UNITED STATES PARK POLICE AND 

6 UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE UNI7 FORMED DIVISION ANNUITANTS FOR PAY8 MENTS MADE IN 2005 AND SUBSEQUENT 

9 YEARS. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 905(f) of the Law En11 forcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 (sec. 5–561.02(f), D.C. 

12 Official Code) is amended by striking the period at the 

13 end and inserting the following: ‘‘, for any payment made 

14 prior to January 1, 2006.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact17 ment of the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp
Asociates 1980-1 Financial Statements for the nine months ended September 30,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       36,985
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0 
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            220,802
<PP&E>                                    4,934,722<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                          (2,718,549)<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2,477,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       947,189
<BONDS>                                   3,476,970<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                (1,946,809)<F4>
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              2,477,350
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            833,144<F5>
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            618,849<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          272,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (58,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Includes multi-family complex of $4,788,097 and deferred expenses of
 $146,625.
<F2>Includes depreciation of $2,682,241 and amortization of deferred expenses
 of $36,308.
<F3>Represents mortgage note payable of $2,219,585 and notes to an afiliated
 party of $1,257,385.
<F4>Deficit of General Partners ($1,285,989) and Limited Partners ($660,820).
<F5>Includes all revenue of the Partnership.
<F6>Includes operating expenses of $380,456, real estate tax expense of
 $102,384 and depreciation and amortization expense of $136,009.
<F7>Net loss allocated ($581) to the General Partners, ($5,233) to the Original
 Limited Partner and ($52,327) to the Investor Limited Partners.   Average 
net loss is ($13.08) per Unit of Investor Limited Partner interest for 4,000
 Units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45502, 333-90839,
333-51486, 333-52562 and 333-104353) of Sycamore Networks, Inc. of our report dated August 18, 2004, except for Note 3, as to which date is September 12, 2005 relating to the financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K/A.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|                              
|Boston, Massachusetts         
|September 12, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          57,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (140,311)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,628
<PP&E>                                          71,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (46,080)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,876
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           80,450
<PREFERRED>                                     20,766

<COMMON>                                       285,890
<OTHER-SE>                                    (715,604)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,288
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,393
<CGS>                                            9,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               477,682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (468,298)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (468,298)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                236,798
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (231,502)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6712

PATRICIA C. CANTRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina

Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK,

Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-94-1212-6-18AK)

Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Stevens Brown, V, William Harrell Foster, III, NELSON,

MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cantrell

v. Evatt, No. CA-94-1212-6-18AK (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 1995). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 6, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00806-CR

ADIT YADIR UMANZOR-VILLALOBOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1318988

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

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by appellant, 

has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not 

delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to 

issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PAUL D. GUNDER,

Respondent

v.

JOHN R. YOST JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 751 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION   Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report
(date of earliest event reported)
August 19, 2004 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION  (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    not applicable(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 Dixie Road, Suite 100, Brampton, Ontario, Canada
    
    L6T 5P6(address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code (905) 863-0000.




---



##### 



Item 7.          Financial Statements,Pro FormaFinancial Information and Exhibits (c) Exhibits. 99.1 Press Release issued by the Registrant on August 19, 2004. Item 12.          Results of Operations and Financial Condition On August 19, 2004, the Registrant issued a press release providing a status
update on its financial restatement process and other related matters. Such
press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and furnished in accordance
with Item 12 of Form 8-K.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ William R. KerrWilliam R. KerrChief Financial OfficerBy:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant Secretary Dated: August 19, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX 99.1     Press Release issued by the Registrant on August 19, 2004