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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 58 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 58

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the 
Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to 
 travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent 
 as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such 
                               aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the 
Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to 
 travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent 
 as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such 
                               aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF CERTAIN DISABLED FORMER 
              MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1060b the following new section:
``Sec. 1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former 
              members of the armed forces
    ``The Secretary of Defense shall permit any former member of the 
armed forces who is entitled to compensation under the laws 
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a service-
connected disability rated as total to travel, in the same manner and 
to the same extent as retired members of the armed forces, on 
unscheduled military flights within the continental United States and 
on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Air Mobility Command. The 
Secretary of Defense shall permit such travel on a space-available 
basis.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
1060b the following new item:

``1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members 
                            of the armed forces.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dicken *v.*The Western Union Telegraph Company.

‘There being no court in this State on which jurisdiction to entertain suits for penalties is expressly conferred by the constitution or by statute, and, with the exception of equity cases, suits for divorce and cases involving titles to land, restricted jurisdiction in civil cases being generally with reference to the amount in controversy, and this restriction being applied expressly to justice’s courts both in the constitution and the statutes, it follows that an act imposing a penalty of one hundred dollars upon telegraph companies for neglect of duty, and declaring that the same “ may be recovered by suit in a justice or other court having jurisdiction thereof,” should be construed as intending to confer jurisdiction upon any . court whatsoever whose jurisdiction in any class of actions against telegraph companies would extend to suits for one hundred dollars. It is no argument against this construction and this inter■pretation of the legislative intent, that the attempt to invest justice’s courts with jurisdiction was defeated by the constitutional provision which restricts the jurisdiction of these courts, in cases of tort, not only to one hundred dollars, but to injuries to personal property, thus excluding penalties for the non-performance of a public duty. The case of *Solomon*v. *Western TJnion Telegraph*Company, 92 *Ga.*360, reviewed and affirmed. *Judgment reversed.*

April 21, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Action for penalty. Before Judge Jenkins. Morgan •■superior court. March, term, 1893.

W. R. Mustin, for plaintiff.

Gustin, Guerry & Hall, for defendant.

The suit was brought to the county court, where the judge found for the defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the superior court, where defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that the county court had no jurisdiction of the case, it being a suit to recover a penalty, and the jurisdiction of the county court being limited to suits on -contracts and torts. The demurrer was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

_____________________

No. 16-30486

_____________________

RICKY LANGLEY,

Petitioner − Appellant

v.

HOWARD PRINCE, WARDEN, ELAYN HUNT CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER, 

Respondent − Appellee

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana

__________________________

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion May 14, 2018, 5 Cir., 2018, 890 F.3d 504)

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, OWEN, ELROD, 

SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, COSTA, WILLETT, HO, 

DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for 

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active 

service and not disqualified having voted in favor, 

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc 

with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a 

briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 12, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6615] 

The Industry Advisory Panel of Overseas Buildings Operations will meet on Tuesday, June 2, 2009 from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting will be held in room 1107 of the U.S. Department of State, located at 2201 C Street, NW., (entrance on 23rd Street) Washington, DC. For logistical and security reasons, it is imperative that everyone enter and exit using only the 23rd Street entrance. The majority of the meeting is devoted to an exchange of ideas between the Department's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' senior management and the panel members, on design, operations, and building maintenance. Members of the public are asked to kindly refrain from joining the discussion until Director Shinnick opens the discussion to them. 

                    Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend should provide, by May 22, 2009, their name, professional affiliation, date of birth, citizenship, and a valid government-issued ID number (                    *i.e.*, U.S. government ID, U.S. military ID, passport, or drivers license with state) by e-mailing:                     *iapr@state.gov.*                     Because of space restrictions, we request that companies interested in attending send only one representative.                 

                    If you have any questions, please contact Andrea Walk at                     *walkam@state.gov*                     or on (703) 516-1544.                 

Dated: May 1, 2009. 

Richard J. Shinnick, 

                        Director,                         *ad interim*, Overseas Building Operations, Department of State.                    

 [FR Doc. E9-11302 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
EXHIBIT
15.1











CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333
-153274 on Form F-3 of our reports dated March 26, 2009, relating to the
consolidated and combined financial statements of Capital Product Partners L.P.
(the “Partnership”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to (1) the formation of Capital Product Partners
L.P. and the preparation of the portion of the  combined financial
statements attributable to the period through April 4, 2007 from the separate
records maintained by Capital Maritime & Trading Corp., and (2) the
preparation of the portion of the combined financial statements attributable to
the Ross Shipmanagement Co., Baymont Enterprises Incorporated, and Forbes
Maritime Co., prior to the vessel acquisition by the Partnership, from the
separate records maintained by Capital Maritime & Trading Corp.) and
management’s report on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control
over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the
Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2008.








/s/
Deloitte. Hadjipavlou, Sofianos & Cambanis S.A.


Athens,
Greece


March 26,
2009
#### State v. Harris

Case below: 175 N.C. App. 360

No. 025P06

1. AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA05-111)

2. AG’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. AG’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-111)

5. Def’s Cross-Petition for Discretionary Review Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 360 N.C. 292

Stay dissolved 12/19/06

2. Denied 12/19/06

3. See Special Order Page 154

4. Denied 12/19/06

5. Denied
#### In the Matter of Koontie Mohabir, Appellant, v Kumar Singh, Respondent.

Submitted November 30, 2009;

decided January 12, 2010

Reported below, 63 AD3d 1159.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*13 NY3d 709 (2009)].
##### 



Exhibit 15 November 8, 2004 Sears, Roebuck and Co.
3333 Beverly Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60179 We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial
information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the thirteen week and thirty-nine
week periods ended October 2, 2004 and September 27, 2003, as indicated in our
report dated November 8, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on that information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345,
333-08141, and 333-113532 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement No.
333-92082 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck Acceptance Corp.;
Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, 333-43309, and 333-120219 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan;
Registration Statement No. 333-102114 of Sears, Roebuck and Co., the Sears
401(K) Savings Plan (formerly, the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears
Employees and the Sears 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan) and Lands End, Inc.
Retirement Plan; Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
and Sears DC Corp.; Registration Statement No. 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and
Co. and the Sears Associate Stock Ownership Plan; Registration Statement No.
333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2000 Employee Stock Plan;
Registration Statement No. 333-72514 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001
Broad-Based Stock Option Plan; and Registration Statement No. 333-87942 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3259

_____________________________ C HRISTOPHER J F ORRESTER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Paul S. Bryan , Judge

. June 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , B ILBREY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 27, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10155 Summary Calendar

TOMMY HAYNES, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution - Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-6

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tommy Haynes, federal prisoner # 25197-177, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of amphetamine and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Haynes challenges his underlying conviction and sentence, arguing that the district court erred by denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in that it failed to perform “an actual innocence analysis” which would have shown that he has been incarcerated for an offense to which heNo. 06-10155 -2- neither pleaded guilty nor was found guilty by a jury. Haynes also asserts that he is entitled to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as he is actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted. Haynes seeks remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing or resentencing. Although Haynes seeks to proceed under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause of § 2255, he has not shown that the remedy available under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000) . To the extent Haynes argues that the United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), lines of authority apply retroactively to cases on collateral review and entitle him to file a § 2241 petition, his argument is unavailing in light of Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Haynes is hereby warned that submitting repetitive or frivolous filings in the future will invite the imposition of sanctions.
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### DUY PHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.J. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-55193.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Martha McNab Hall, Esq., Dilorio & Hall, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Duy Pham, Calipatria, CA, pro se.

Bradley A. Weinreb, Esq., Dag, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Duy Pham appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *see Molloy v. Wilson,*878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.1989), and we vacate and remand.

*770Pham contends that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that he failed to set forth extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Specifically, Pham contends that he is entitled to relief from judgment because he is illiterate, unable to speak English, and that the prisoner who had assisted him in filing his habeas petition was transferred, and consequently, that he was unable to respond to the government’s motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court denied Pham’s motion without the benefit of *Mendoza v. Carey,*449 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that where a prisoner “alleged that he lacks English language ability, was denied access to [nativej-language legal materials, and could not procure the assistance of a translator,” those facts could constitute an extraordinary circumstance, that “may entitle him to equitable tolling”); *see also Ford v. Hubbard,*330 F.3d 1086, 1106 n. 20 (9th Cir.2003), *vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pliler v. Ford,*542 U.S. 225, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (comparing the showing of extraordinary circumstances necessary for equitable tolling with the showing necessary for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6)). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for reconsideration of Pham’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion in light of *Mendoza.*

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wendell L. Fuqua, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 834]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe *1325County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered June 18, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to grant his request to instruct the jury that his mere presence in the area where the gun was possessed by another person or his mere knowledge that another person possessed the gun were insufficient to establish his guilt. The court’s definition of the term “possess” was taken from the Criminal Jury Instructions, and that definition adequately conveyed the inference that defendant could not be convicted based on his mere presence in the area where another person possessed the gun or his mere knowledge that another person possessed the gun *(see People v Johnson,*190 AD2d 753, 754 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 972 [1993]; *People v Wooley,*187 AD2d 623, 623 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 849 [1993]; *see also People v Henderson,*307 AD2d 746, 746-747 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 595 [2003]). We presume that the jurors had “ ‘sufficient intelligence’ ” to make that inference, and defendant was “not ‘entitled to select the phraseology’ that makes [that] inference [ ] all the more explicit” *(People v Samuels,*99 NY2d 20, 25-26 [2002]). We reject defendant’s further contention that the court erred in refusing to grant his renewed request for such a jury instruction, following its receipt of a note from the jury regarding the definition of the term “possession.” The court meaningfully responded to the jury’s request by rereading its original instruction with respect to the definition of that term *(see People v Shanks,*207 AD2d 710, 710 [1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 1015 [1994]), and the jury “gave no indication after the original charge was repeated that [its] concern had not been satisfied” *(People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, 303 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 847 [1982]; *see People v Davis,*118 AD2d 206, 212 [1986], *lv denied*68 NY2d 768 [1986]). Present — Fahey, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4092 

A bill to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, Colorado. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2006 

Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

A bill to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, 

Colorado. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND USE IN JEF4 FERSON COUNTY, COLORADO. 

5 Notwithstanding any applicable State or local land 

6 use or condemnation laws or regulations, and subject to 

7 all applicable Federal laws and regulations, any person 

8 that holds an approved Federal Communications Commis9 sion permit to construct or install either a digital television 

10 broadcast station antenna or tower, or both, located on 

11 Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County in the State of 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 4092 CPS

1 Colorado, may, at such location, construct, install, use, 

2 modify, replace, repair, or consolidate such antenna or 

3 tower, or both, and all accompanying facilities and services 

4 associated with such digital television broadcasts, if such 

5 antenna or tower is of the same height or lower than the 

6 tallest existing analog broadcast antenna or tower at such 

7 location. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
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
  Ran Daniel, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial amd Accounting Officer) of Suspect Detection Systems Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10- K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: March 21, 2011
 
  /s/ Ran Daniel