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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2640 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2640

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 462 Washington Street in Woburn, Massachusetts, as the ``Officer 
                  John Maguire Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2011

 Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Keating, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
 Neal, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Tierney, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Tsongas, 
and Mr. Olver) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 462 Washington Street in Woburn, Massachusetts, as the ``Officer 
                  John Maguire Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. OFFICER JOHN MAGUIRE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 462 Washington Street in Woburn, Massachusetts, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Officer John Maguire Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
John Maguire Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2361 

To improve the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by explicitly barring 

debt collectors from bringing legal action on a debt in which the statute 

of limitations has expired against any consumer, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2011 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

MEEKS, and Ms. LEE of California) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To improve the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by explicitly barring debt collectors from bringing legal action 

on a debt in which the statute of limitations has expired 

against any consumer, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Debt Collection 

5 Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF TIME-BARRED DEBT. 

7 (a) LEGAL ACTIONS ON TIME-BARRED DEBT.—Sec8 tion 811 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 


ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2361 IH

1 U.S.C. 1692i) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(c) A debt collector may not bring, or threaten to 

4 bring, legal action against any consumer on a debt in 

5 which the statute of limitations has expired.’’. 

6 (b) COMMUNICATION WITH CONSUMERS WITH TIME7 BARRED DEBT.—Section 805 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 1692c) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub10 section (e); and 

11 (2) by inserting the following: 

12 ‘‘(d) COMMUNICATION WITH CONSUMERS WITH

13 TIME-BARRED DEBT.—In connection with the collection 

14 of debt in which the statute of limitations has expired, 

15 a debt collector shall disclose to a consumer the following: 

16 ‘‘(1) The debt has been transferred to the debt 

17 collector. 

18 ‘‘(2) The creditor no longer holds the debt. 

19 ‘‘(3) As a result of the expiration of the statute 

20 of limitations with respect to such debt, the debt col21 lector may not bring legal action against the con22 sumer to collect such debt. 


ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2361 IH

1 ‘‘(4) Any payment by the consumer towards the 

2 debt may cause the statute of limitations for such 

3 debt to reset.’’. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
12/31/96

CASH                                                            28,792,103
MARKETABLE                                                               -
NOTES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE                                    3,948,383
ALLOWANCES FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS                                    95,000
INVENTORY                                                        1,379,270
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS                                            37,831,403
PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT                                      4,081,129
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION                                         1,468,362
TOTAL ASSETS                                                    41,446,764
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES                                        6,838,646
BONDS, MORTGAGES AND SIMILAR DEBT                                        -
PREFERRED STOCK MANDATORY REDEMPTION                                     -
PREFERRED STOCK MANDATORY REDEMPTION                                     -
COMMON STOCK                                                       107,959
OTHER STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY:
         ADDITIONAL PAID IN CAPITAL                             43,782,004
         RETAINED EARNINGS                                      (9,130,599)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY                       41,446,764
NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS                                   2,479,585
TOTAL REVENUE                                                    9,504,581
COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS                                           1,257,807
TOTAL COST                                                       2,027,139
OTHER COST AND EXPENSES                                          6,077,243
PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS                                          -
INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION                                           50,183
INCOME BEFORE TAXES AND OTHER ITEMS                              1,732,988
INCOME TAX EXPENSE                                                 343,597
INCOME/LOSS CONTINUING OPERATIONS                                1,400,199
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS                                                  -
EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS                                                      -
CUMULATIVE EFFECT-CHANGES IN ACCOUNTING                                  -
NET INCOME OR LOSS                                               1,389,391
EARNINGS PER SHARE PRIMARY                                            0.11
EARNINGS PER SHARE FULLY DILUTED                                      0.11
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 
<NAME> OBJECT DESIGN, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,413
<SECURITIES>                                     4,491
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                       592
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,211
<PP&E>                                           3,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,131
<BONDS>                                             61
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,312
<SALES>                                         20,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,719
<CGS>                                            1,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    962
<INCOME-TAX>                                        24
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                938
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       938
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Pronto General Agency, Ltd. d/b/a Pronto /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

October 13, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00269

- CV

Andrea COLLIE

, Appellant

v.

IBEX STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. and Pronto General Agency, Ltd. d/b/a Pronto Insurance, Appellees

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 376802 Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The appell ee s ’ brief was originally due to be filed on September 15, 2014 . The appell ee s ’ first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to October 15, 2014 . On October 9, 2014 , the appell ees filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the brief until November 14, 2014 , for a total extension of sixty days. The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLEE S WILL BE GRANTED

. The a ppell ee s ’ b rief must be filed by November 14, 2014.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Caliper Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E.
Kevin Hrusovsky, Chief Executive 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.

August 14, 2003

                                    /s/ E. KEVIN HRUSOVSKY
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    E. Kevin Hrusovsky
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 35.1




Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Mark Kaczynski, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period May 23, 2013 through March 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, as amended and as supplemented by the 2013-A SUBI Servicing Supplement, dated as of May 23, 2013 (as supplemented, the “Agreement”), by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT, as titling trust, NILT Trust, as UTI beneficiary, and the Company, as servicer, to be conducted under his supervision; and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 27th day of June, 2014.




/s/ Mark Kaczynski_________________


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 24, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 24, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0345. ROBERT JAY DAVIS v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 10CR052
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus DERICK A. GEIGER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (2:01-cr-00261-5; 2:05-cv-00166) Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derick A. Geiger, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* To the extent Geiger claims for the first time on appeal that counsel failed to file a petition for panel and en banc rehearing in the appeal of the criminal judgment, we decline to address this claim. See U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co. , 452 F.3d 275, 283 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Generally, an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered, unless the refusal to consider it would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”). In addition, because Geiger did not challenge in his informal brief the district court’s rejection of the claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari as requested by Geiger, we find that he has waived appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. (continued...) - 2 - PER CURIAM: Derick A. Geiger seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be deniedin part and granted in part and advised Geiger that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Geiger failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Geiger has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. ** (...continued) 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). - 3 - Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 13, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 13, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0187. PRAVEEN JHA v. SUMMER MENKEE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

18P07949
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00004

- CR

E X PARTE E RIC R ANDALL H INKLE §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 372nd District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 0708720R )

April 8, 2021

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court h as considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnes ota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L
. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4195

___________ Anthony Wayne Profit, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. County of Hennepin, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 3, 1997 Filed: June 6, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Anthony Wayne Profit, a Minnesota inmate, appeals from the district court's 1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Hennepin County. After reviewi ng the record and the parties' briefs, we agree with the district court that Profit essentially atta cks the legality of his imprisonment, and that his claim thus must be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, after he exhausts his state remedies. See-2-

Preiser v . Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 487-90 (1971); see also Kruger v. Erickson , 7 7 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Accordingly, the judgm ent of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Profit's motions for appointment of counsel and for "Collateral [R]elief." A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE ’ S BRIEF Page | 1 No. 05- 17 -01114- CV

____________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS

MATTHEW D. STERN Appellant
V. BELLA CUSTOM HOMES, INC. Appellee

On Appeal from Dallas County Court at Law Number 2

T. King Fifer, Judge Presiding

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE APPELL EE ’ S BRIEF

Appellee Bella Custom Homes, Inc. ( “ Bella ” ) moves for an unopposed
extension of time to file its brief in this proceeding and states the following in
support:

1. Bella ’ s brief is due to be filed on May 31, 2018. Bella respectfully requests a
thirty-day extension of time, until June 30, 2018, to file its brief. Bella has not
previously requested an extension of time to file its brief. This extension is not
sought merely for delay, but in the interest of justice. ACCEPTED 05-17-01114-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 6/1/2018 4:50 PM LISA MATZ CLERKUNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE ’ S BRIEF Page | 2 2. Bella ’ s appellate counsel has been involved in attending f ive mult i

- party
mediations, a deposition , and a site inspection, most of which involved travel,
during the 30 days since Appellant ’ s brief was filed, leaving insufficient time for
Appellee ’ s counsel to complete its brief by the current deadline. All of the
referenced activities were scheduled prior to the filing of Appellant ’ s brief.

3. Bella prays that the Court enter an order granting its Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to File Appellee ’ s Brief and ruling that Bella ’ s brie f be filed
by June 30, 2018.
Respectfully submitted,

/ s/ Dan P. McManus D an P. McManus S tate Bar No. 13782650 T ribble | Ross 6 371 Richmond Avenue H ouston, Texas 77057 T el.: 713.622.0444 F ax: 713.622.0555 d mcmanus@tribblelawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE On June 1, 2018, I communicated with Chad M. Ruback , counsel for Appellant, Matthew D. Stern, who confirmed he is unopposed to this motion. / s/ Dan P. McManus D an P. McManusUNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE ’ S BRIEF Page | 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2018, I served a copy of this document via the e

- filing portal to following counsel for Appellant, Matthew D. Stern: Chad M. Ruback The Ruback Law Firm 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75225 chad@appeal.pro

/ s/ Dan P. McManus D an P. McManus
Exhibit 99.1





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of


TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.:


We have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated statements of assets and liabilities of TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. and subsidiaries (the “Company”), including the consolidated schedules of investments, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in net assets and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2021, and the consolidated financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, and the related notes, and have issued our report thereon dated March 2, 2022. Such consolidated financial statements and financial highlights and our report thereon are included in Part II, Item 8 of the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.


In our opinion, the financial information set forth under the heading “Liquidity and Capital Resources – Senior Securities” as of December 31, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014, included in Part II, Item 7 of the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated financial statements from which it has been derived.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


San Francisco, California


March 2, 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

WILLIAM GEORGE RABATIN, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 48 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of May, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File a Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.