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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1231 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1231

     To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 2019

 Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
Coons, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Hawley, 
 Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Collins, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Gardner, Ms. Hirono, 
and Mr. Toomey) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.

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

SECTION 1. BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)(23)) is amended by 
striking ``part Y'' and all that follows and inserting ``part Y, 
$30,000,000 for fiscal year 2020, and each fiscal year thereafter.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Stephen L. Brown,  as Chief  Executive  Officer of Franklin  Capital
Corporation (the "COMPANY") certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the  accompanying  Form 10-K report for the period ending  December
31,  2003 as  filed  with the  U.S.  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"REPORT") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  March 30, 2004                      /s/ Stephen L. Brown
                                            --------------------
                                            Stephen L. Brown
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Franklin  Capital  Corporation  and will be  retained  by Franklin
Capital  Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
November 16, 2001

Trevor Webb
CEO
Rubber Technology International, Inc.
3185 East Washington Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90023

RE:     Payment for Hauling Services

Dear Mr. Webb

     This letter sets forth our understanding whereby Rubber Technology
International, Inc. (RTEK) has agreed to issue the undersigned 875,000 shares of
RTEK common stock (the "Shares") in exchange for $35,000. in compensation for
hauling services rendered RTEK.  Said issuance shall be registered on Form S-8
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Registration Statement").

If this letter correctly sets forth your understanding and agreement with
respect to the matters mentioned above, please execute and return one copy of
this Agreement to the undersigned personal service or facsimile and U.S. Mail.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       /s/ Mark Blackburn
                                       Mark Blackburn
905 A.2d 878

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE TILGHMAN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
EXHIBIT 23.1


			 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-21487) of Button Gwinnett Financial Corporation and in the
related Prospectus pertaining to the Button Gwinnett Financial Corporation 1993
Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated January 14, 1998, except for Note 14
as to which the date is February 5, 1998, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Button Gwinnett Financial Corporation included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


				     /s/ Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC


March 27, 1998
Atlanta, Georgia
#### Tara Bach, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[827 NYS2d 2]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered January 5, 2006, which, inter alia, denied that branch of plaintiffs motion seeking renewal of her previously denied motion for summary judgment on the ground of spoliation, and that branch of her motion seeking the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CFLR 3126, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*545Although plaintiff’s motion was premised on new material and, accordingly, was one for renewal, and not reargument as the motion court thought, the substantive relief sought was nonetheless properly denied. While the record indicates that records possibly bearing on whether defendant had notice of the alleged park path defect were lost, their loss was evidently inadvertent and occurred before the Parks Department, the custodian of the records, had notice of an impending action by plaintiff. In view of the circumstances attending the loss and the additional circumstance that the lost records were not shown to be crucial to plaintiffs case, summary judgment upon the ground of spoliation would not have been appropriate (see *Squitieri v City of New York,*248 AD2d 201 [1998]; *DiDomenico v C & S Aeromatik Supplies,*252 AD2d 41, 53 [1998]; *Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth.,*236 AD2d 170 [1997]). Nor did plaintiff demonstrate grounds for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126. No willful and contumacious failure by defendant to comply with court-ordered discovery was shown *(see Nussbaum v D'Amico,*29 AD3d 449 [2006]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.
RICHARD RICARI)O THORNE and Magistrate No. 11-4024GRAHAM SMITH

I, Dwayne Delain. the undersigned complainant being duly sworn, state the

following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. On or about January 11,

201 1, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendants did:

knowingly and intentionally, conspired and agreed with others to distribute and to possesswith intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance,

contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a) and (b)( I )(B)(i)In violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846.

I further state that I am a Special Agent with Drug Enforcement Administration

and that this complaint is based on the following facts:

SEE ATTACI-IMENT A

Dwayne I)ehinSpecial Agent

Drug Fnforcement Administration

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence,

January 13, 2011 at Newark, New Jersey

Date City and State

Honorable Claire C. Cecchi

United States Magistrate Judge Signature of Judicial Officer
Pennsylvania Station. namely, defendant RICFIARD RICARDO THORNE. was suspected of being

a narcotics courier.

2. At approximately 6:15 p.m., law enforcement agents boarded Amtrak 92 to conduct

surveillance of RICHARD RICARDO THORNE. After Amtrak 92 arrived at Newark Pennsylvania

Station, defendant RICHARD RICARDO THORNE was observed by law enforcement agents

departing the train, carrying a black piece of luggage and later speaking on a cellular telephone. It

was determined that defendant RICHARD RICARDO THORNE was speaking to defendant

GRAHAM SM1TI I.

3. At approximately 8:30 p.m., defendant GRAHAM SMITH and an uncharged other arrived

in a silver Jeep Cherokee at Newark Pennsylvania Station for the purpose of picking up and

transporting RICFIAR1) RICARDO THORNE. Defendant RICHARD RICARDO THORNE

approached the Jeep Cherokee and attempted to enter the vehicle with his luggage. Law enforcement

apprehended RICHARD RICARDO THORNE, GRAHAM SMITH. and the other.

4. Law enforcement agents recovered approximately 770 grams of controlled substances.

specifically. which field tested positive for 380 grams of heroin and 390 grams of cocaine. hiddenin the luggage that RICHARD RICARDO THORNE transported on the train.

2
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1813
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 1814
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 1815
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 1816
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 1817
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 1818
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 1819
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 1820
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 1821
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 1822
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 1823
Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 93-1 Filed 07/23/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 1824
|EXHIBIT 28(a)
|-------------







|REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO THE DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Wellman International Limited and subsidiaries at 31 December 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three year period ended 31 December 2000. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above, present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Wellman International Limited and subsidiaries at 31 December 2000 and 1999, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended 31 December 2000 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



KPMG

Chartered Accountants

Dublin, Ireland





31 January 2001
#### PERRONE v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

No. 2768.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Nov. 18, 1943.

Joseph A. McLaughlin, of New York City (Harry S. Austin, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Alfred W. Andrews, of New York City, for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves for a retaxation of his costs, namely, disbursements in connection with the first trial of his cause, the *281items having been disallowed by the Clerk when the bill of costs was settled.

The items now in question are:

Stenographer’s minutes, first trial $225.00

Premium on bond for costs on ap peal ......................... 10.00

Filing of bond.................. 5.00 Total ...................... $240.00

As the result of the first trial in this court and at the close thereof the complaint was dismissed.

The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and ordered a new trial, 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 941, which resulted in the plaintiff’s favor, and he now seeks to tax in connection therewith, under the head of disbursements, the foregoing items which pertain alone to the first trial.

The order of the Circuit Court of Appeals reads:

“ * * * that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is reversed with costs, and cause remanded for a new trial.

“Further ordered that execution issue for the collection of said costs.”

The mandate contains the items of costs taxed in the Appellate Court, including “Printing Record $291.80”.

Although the result seems to be unjust, no authority is perceived for now taxing the said disbursements which were incurred solely in connection with the first trial.

Had the plaintiff called the attention of the Circuit Court of Appeals to the desirability of obtaining an order from that Court allowing him costs therein *and also costs in the District Court,*the necessary authority of the Clerk to tax the said disbursements as part of the plaintiff’s final bill of costs would have been present.

The stenographer’s minutes of the first trial were necessarily copied into the transcript on appeal, in whole or in part, and it would seem clear, as a matter of logic, that if the transcript itself was a proper taxable disbursement, the material from which it was mainly constructed would necessarily be taxable likewise, but in the absence of appropriate mandate from the Circuit Court of Appeals it would seem to follow that the plaintiff is now without remedy so far as this Court is concerned.

It does not seem that the discretionary powers of the trial Court, referred to in Rule 80, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, may be exercised by that Court after the Circuit Court of Appeals has disposed of all matters pertaining to the original trial, as in this instance, including the fixing of costs.

Motion denied.

Settle order.
EXHIBIT 32.1









CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)







Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of National Datacomputer, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: April 7, 2011




/s/  Bruna Bucacci


Bruna Bucacci


President and Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7431

BENJAMIN F. SALLEE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOYNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COCKRAN; LIEUTENANT WELLS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BANKS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BRADFORD, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-5-2) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin F. Sallee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin F. Sallee, Jr. appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action. The district court’s dismissal is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice could be final if “no amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case.” Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending the complaint.” Id. at 1066-67. Appellant could refile his complaint if he particularized his claims as ordered by the district court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because we find the dismissal without prejudice of the complaint is not appealable. 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