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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2570 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the permanent and 

expanded authority for Army industrial facilities to enter into certain 

cooperative arrangements with non-Army entities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2011 

Mr. SCHILLING (for himself and Mr. LOEBSACK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the 

permanent and expanded authority for Army industrial 

facilities to enter into certain cooperative arrangements 

with non-Army entities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT AND EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR 

4 ARMY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES TO ENTER 

5 INTO CERTAIN COOPERATIVE ARRANGE6 MENTS WITH NON-ARMY ENTITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4544 of title 10, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2570 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking the second 

2 sentence; and 

3 (2) by striking subsection (k). 

4 (b) REPORT.—Section 328(b)(A) of the National De5 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

6 110–181; 122 Stat. 66; 10 U.S.C. 4544 note) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘the advisability’’ and all that follows through 

8 the end and inserting ‘‘the effect of the use of such author9 ity on the rates charged by each Army industrial facility 

10 when bidding on contracts for the Army or for a Defense 

11 agency and providing recommendations to improve the 

12 ability of each category of Army industrial facility (as de13 fined in section 4544(j) of title 10, United States Code) 

14 to compete for such contracts;’’. 

15 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INDUSTRIAL FACILI16 TIES AS CENTERS OF INDUSTRIAL AND TECH17 NICAL EXCELLENCE. 

18 Section 2474(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 

19 is amended by inserting ‘‘or military industrial facility’’ 

20 after ‘‘depot-level activity’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROYLAND RICE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

PAUL THOMPSON, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 21-16200 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00649-JAM-CKD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Royland Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 Rice’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.

FILED

DEC 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-16200 

novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we 

vacate and remand.

Rice’s § 2241 petition alleges that, after he received a $1,200 stimulus 

payment pursuant to the CARES Act, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated his 

due process rights when it sought to increase the monthly restitution payments he 

makes through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. The district court 

construed these allegations as pertaining to Rice’s conditions of confinement and 

determined he should have raised them in a civil rights action. However, Rice’s

challenge is to the execution of the restitution award, which is properly raised in a 

§ 2241 habeas petition. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 

2008) (reviewing denial of a § 2241 petition challenging the execution of a 

restitution award); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000)

(“[P]etitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s 

execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.”). 

Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

We express no opinion as to the merits of Rice’s claims or as to whether he 

has exhausted those claims. Rice’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an 

injunction requiring the BOP to terminate his refusal status are denied without 

prejudice to renewal before the district court. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00325-CR

RUDDY JOSEPH HERRERA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

County Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. GC-32419

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause 

on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as 

modified. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 25, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
         Company's balance sheets and related statements of operations for the
         periods ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
         reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          2,320
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                      148
<INVENTORY>                                    12,457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,250
<PP&E>                                         15,412
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28,896
<BONDS>                                        30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        9,717
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   55,048
<SALES>                                       100,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              100,120
<CGS>                                          50,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  50,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               63,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  146
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,797)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,042)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,042)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)

        



</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 295 

To amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 to authorize 

funds to acquire hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services 

specific to the Arctic for safe navigation, delineating the United States 

extended continental shelf, and the monitoring and description of coastal 

changes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2011 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 

1998 to authorize funds to acquire hydrographic data 

and provide hydrographic services specific to the Arctic 

for safe navigation, delineating the United States extended continental shelf, and the monitoring and description of coastal changes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 Section 306 of the Hydrographic Services Improve5 ment Act of 1998 (33 U.S.C. 892d) is amended— 


eMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 295 IH

1 (1) by inserting before the text the following: 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub4 section: 

5 ‘‘(b) ARCTIC PROGRAMS.—Of the amount authorized 

6 for each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013— 

7 ‘‘(1) $5,000,000 is authorized for use to ac8 quire hydrographic data, provide hydrographic serv9 ices, conduct coastal change analyses necessary to 

10 ensure safe navigation, and improve the manage11 ment of coastal change in the Arctic; and 

12 ‘‘(2) $2,000,000 is authorized for use to ac13 quire hydrographic data and provide hydrographic 

14 services in the Arctic necessary to delineate the 

15 United States extended Continental Shelf.’’. 

Æ 


eMCDONALD on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                              LIDAK PHARMACEUTICALS

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE




                                         Years Ended September 30,
                                     1994           1995            1996
                                 -------------  ------------  -------------

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding (1)     25,620,239    29,338,418      32,072,994

Less:  Weighted average number
  of common escrow shares (2)       (453,281)              0              0
                                 -------------  ------------  -------------


Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding       25,166,958     29,338,418     32,072,944
                                 ------------   ------------  -------------

Net loss                         $(4,813,341)  $(10,173,001)   $(6,130,241)
                                 ------------   ------------  -------------

Net loss per share                   $ (0.19)       $ (0.35)       $ (0.19)
                                 ============    ===========   ============

1) Common equivalent shares have been excluded from the number of shares used in
the calculation of weighted average number of common shares as their inclusion
would be antidilutive.

2) Represents shares of common stock which had been placed in escrow and were
subject to forfeiture and accordingly, have been excluded from the number of
shares used in the calculation of weighted average number of shares outstanding.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TOSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Optimal Group
Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that to the best of the
undersigneds knowledge:

|1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
          30, 2004 (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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 4, 2004

| |     |                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Neil S. Wechsler                                    
| |     | Neil S. Wechsler
Co-Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of this
report or as a separate disclosure document.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Felix Maroto et al. v. Walter Weddle, etc.

July 21, 1986

Case No. (Law) 2435

By JUDGE H. CALVIN SPAIN

This matter was heard on May 2nd, 1985, with respect to the Plea of Statute of Limitations filed by the defendant. A pretrial memorandum of law was filed by the plaintiff and testimony was heard from various witnesses on behalf of the defendant. Exhibits were admitted as a part of the evidence, including answers to interrogatories by the plaintiffs. After hearing all of the evidence, the Court took the matter under advisement and requested additional briefs from the plaintiffs and defendant.

The Court, now having read the transcript of the evidence presented at the May 2nd hearing, having reviewed the contents of the file in great detail, and reviewed the case law as cited by the parties, concludes that the defendant’s Plea of the Statute of Limitations should be sustained.

The reasons for the Court’s holding are two-fold: (1) No matter which Statute of Limitations is applicable, the same has not been tolled by the allegations of fraud; and (2) Section 8.01-250 is an *absolute*bar.

With respect to the fraud allegations, accepting all as being true, the nature of that fraud cannot, in the minds of reasonable men, be of that magnitude to meet the test: "The character of fraud necessary to toll the statute must be of a variety involving moral turpitude. A defendant must intend to conceal the discovery of the cause of action by trick or artifice and must have thus actually concealed it from the plaintiff in order for *361the exception to apply." *Housing Authority*v. *Laburnum Corp.,*195 Va. 827, 840 (1954). *Culpeper Nat’l Bank*v. *Tidewater Improvement Co.*119 Va. 73 (1916). In fact, the "difficulty in ascertaining the existence of a cause of action is irrelevant." *Virginia Military Institute v. King, 217*Va. 751, 759 (1977).

With respect to Section 8.01-250, *Virginia Military Institute*v. *King, supra,*is dispositive. The Court said at page 758 that the purpose of Section 8.01-250 is "to establish an arbitrary termination date after which no litigation of the type specified may be initiated." Further reading of the case only reenforces the *repose*nature of the statute despite the inequities that may arise.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2934 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of 

certain retirement plan contributions picked up by governmental employers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. 

ROYCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

the treatment of certain retirement plan contributions 

picked up by governmental employers. 

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 TREATMENT OF CERTAIN 

4 RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS PICKED 

5 UP BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 414(h) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘For purposes of paragraph 

9 (1)’’ and inserting the following: 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2934 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of para2 graph (1)’’, and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(B) TREATMENT OF ELECTIONS BE6 TWEEN ALTERNATIVE BENEFIT FORMULAS.— 

7 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of 

8 subparagraph (A), a contribution shall not 

9 fail to be treated as picked up by an em10 ploying unit merely because the employee 

11 may make an irrevocable election between 

12 the application of two alternative benefit 

13 formulas involving the same or different 

14 levels of employee contributions. 

15 ‘‘(ii) APPLICATION TO EXISTING EM16 PLOYEES.—Clause (i) shall be applied 

17 without regard to whether the employee is 

18 already covered by one of the benefit for19 mulas referred to therein.’’. 

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

21 this section shall apply to years ending after the date of 

22 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report of Braintech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederick Weidinger the Principal 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 to my 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/ Frederick Weidinger    
|Frederick Weidinger        
|Principal Executive Officer
|Date: March 18, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23



The Board of Directors
Maxxim Medical, Inc. and subsidiaries


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-27609) on Form S-8 of Maxxim Medical, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report
dated December 23, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Maxxim
Medical, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of November 2, 1997 and November 3, 1996, and
the related consolidated statements of earnings, retaining earnings, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended November 2, 1997,
and all related schedules, which report appears in the November 2, 1997, annual
report on Form 10-K of Maxxim Medical, Inc. and subsidiaries.



                                                     KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



Houston, Texas
January 22, 1998
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                             THE LEAP GROUP, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended October 31,         Nine Months Ended October 31,
                                                     ------------------------------         -----------------------------
                                                           1996             1995                 1996             1995
                                                           ----             ----                 ----             ----

<S>                                                     <C>              <C>                 <C>              <C>
Weighted average of common shares outstanding             9,600,000        9,600,000         9,600,000         9,600,000
Effect of options granted within one year
  prior to the offering, based on the
  treasury stock method                                     508,680          508,680            508,680           508,680
Weighted average of common shares issued
  in the offering                                         1,333,333                -            444,444              -

Total                                                    11,442,013       10,108,680         10,553,124        10,108,680

Net income (loss)                                          $435,234          $23,898           $692,477          $698,914

Net income (loss) per common share                         $   0.04          $  0.00           $   0.07          $   0.07

 
</TABLE>
#### Sandra TURNER, Debra Scruggs, Jerryle-an Baker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jerold PROD, individually and in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Department of Social Services of the State of California; et al., Defendants-Appellants, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Third Party Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 82-4552, 82-4566, 82-4567 and 82-4599.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 2, 1985.

Mark N. Aaronson, Gwenda Jones Kelley, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs-appellees.

John J. Klee, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants.

Before SKOPIL and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court in *Heckler v. Turner,*— U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1138, 84 L.Ed.2d 138 (1985), the judgment of the district court is

REVERSED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.