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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3279 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that caregivers for veterans 

with serious illnesses are eligible for assistance and support services 

provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 27, 2011 

Mr. REYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that caregivers for veterans with serious illnesses are eligible for 

assistance and support services provided by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs. 

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 WITH RESPECT TO THE ELIGI4 BILITY OF CAREGIVERS FOR VETERANS WITH 

5 SERIOUS ILLNESSES FOR ASSISTANCE AND 

6 SUPPORT SERVICES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1720G(a)(2)(B) is 

8 amended by inserting ‘‘illness or’’ after ‘‘serious’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3279 IH

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to services provided 

3 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3267 

To provide small businesses with a grace period for any regulatory violation, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2011 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide small businesses with a grace period for any 

regulatory violation, 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 ‘‘Protect Small Business 

5 Jobs Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IN GENERAL. 

7 Section 558 of title 5, United States Code, is amend8 ed by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(d) Before imposing any sanction on a small busi10 ness (as such term is defined in section 601 of title 5, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3267 IH

1 United States Code, and including any business with a 

2 market capitalization of $7,000,000 or less in average an3 nual receipts, or any business that is classified as a mining 

4 or manufacturing business under the North American In5 dustrial Classification System that has 500 employees or 

6 less) for any violation of a rule or pursuant to an adjudica7 tion, an agency shall— 

8 ‘‘(1) not later than 10 business days after the 

9 date on which the agency determines that a sanction 

10 may be imposed on the small business, provide no11 tice to the small business that the small business 

12 may be subject to a sanction at the end of the grace 

13 period described in paragraph (2); 

14 ‘‘(2) defer any further action for a period of not 

15 less than 6 months, which shall be extended by an 

16 additional period of 3 months on application by the 

17 small business demonstrating reasonable efforts 

18 made in good faith to remedy the violation or other 

19 conduct giving rise to the sanction; 

20 ‘‘(3) make a further determination after the pe21 riod described in paragraph (2) as to whether or not 

22 the small business would still be subject to the sanc23 tion as of the end of that period; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3267 IH

1 ‘‘(4) if the determination under paragraph (3) 

2 is that the small business would not be subject to 

3 the sanction, waive the sanction. 

4 ‘‘(e) Nothing in subsection (d) shall be contrued to 

5 prevent a small business from appealing any sanction im6 posed in accordance with the procedures of the agency, 

7 or from seeking review under chapter 7 of this title.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD 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 Annual Report of Asia Premium Television Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yin Jian Ping, 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 to the best of 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.









Date:

August 19, 2003



/s/Yin Jian Ping

Yin Jian Ping

Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL RIVERA,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.
STEVE LANGFORD,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 19

- 55445

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 05596

- JLS

- GJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2019

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and PARKER, ** Circuit Judges.
Angel R ivera appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, filed
to restore good time credit lost after a disciplinary hearing

. The parties are familiar
with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, an d affirm the district court.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, review for

clear error underlying factual findings, Zavala v. Ives , 785 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir.
2015), and defer to the findings of the disciplinary hearing offi cer if “some
evidence” supports the determination, Superintendent, Mass

. Corr. Inst., Walpole

v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Due process in a prison disciplinary hearing which may result in the loss of
good time credits requires that a prisoner have the opportunity to call witnesses if
doing so does not imperil “institutional safety or correctional goals.” See Wolff v.

McDonnel l, 418 U.S. 539, 56 6 (1974) . Rivera asserts he was not permitted to do

so , but does not dispute that his signature appears on hearing forms indicating he

did not wish to call witnesses on his behalf. These forms, viewed with the
“presumption of regularit y,” s ee Angov v. Lynch , 788 F.3d 893, 905 (9th Cir.
2015), foreclose this argument.
A prison disciplinary decision need only be “supported by some evidence in

the record.” Hill , 472 U.S. at 454. Rivera’s contention that the disciplinary

decision relied on “a curated selection” of evidence, implicitly admits the existence
of evidence supporting the decision

. The record contains evidence that Rivera was
in the mop closet immediately before the phone was discovered, that he was
standing on a mop bucket so as to be able to reach the smoke detector where the
phone was found, that he attempted to barricade himself in the closet and conceal3

his activities, and that he admitted to being in the closet to wire a cellphone charger
next to the area where the phone was found. Consequently
, “the government
[introduced] ‘some evidence tying the defendant to the particular contraband.’”

United States v. Duenas , 691 F.3d 1070, 1084 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00129-CR

SETH MCCLELAND A/K/A SETH IZAYA MCCLELAND

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18FC-1260G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 2, 2021
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SAMISHIA ASKEW,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-0203

June 26, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Pat Siracusa, Judge.

Jason T. Forman of Law Offices of Jason T. Forman, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee; James A. Hellickson, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Committee]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL REFORM AND OVERSIGHTWILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania, *Chairman*BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New YorkCARDISS COLLINS, IllinoisDAN BURTON, IndianaHENRY A. WAXMAN, CaliforniaJ. DENNIS HASTERT, IllinoisTOM LANTOS, CaliforniaCONSTANCE A. MORELLA, MarylandROBERT E. WISE, JR., West VirginiaCHRISTOPHER SHAYS, ConnecticutMAJOR R. OWENS, New YorkSTEVEN SCHIFF, New MexicoEDOLPHUS TOWNS, New YorkILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, FloridaJOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South CarolinaWILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR., New HampshireLOUISE McINTOSH. SLAUGHTER, New YorkJOHN M. MCHUGH, New YorkPAUL E. KANJORSKI, PennsylvaniaSTEPHEN HORN, CaliforniaGARY A. CONDIT, CaliforniaJOHN L. MICA, FloridaCOLLIN C. PETERSON, MinnesotaPETER BLUTE, MassachusettsKAREN L. THURMAN, FloridaTHOMAS M. DAVIS, VirginiaCAROLYN B. MALONEY, New YorkDAVID M. MCINTOSH, IndianaTHOMAS M. BARRETT, WisconsinRANDY TATE, WashingtonBARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, MichiganDICK CHRYSLER, MichiganELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of ColumbiaGIL GUTKNECHT, MinnesotaMARKE. SOUDER, IndianaJAMES P. MORAN, VirginiaWILLIAM J. MARTINI, New JerseyGENE GREEN, TexasJOE SCARBOROUGH, FloridaCARRIE P. MEEK, FloridaJOHN B. SHADEGG, ArkansasCHAKA FATTAH, PennsylvaniaMICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, IllinoisBILL BREWSTER, OklahomaCHARLES F. BASS, New HampshireTIM HOLDEN, PennsylvaniaSTEVEN C. LATOURETTE, OhioELIJAH CUMMINGS, MarylandMARSHALL (MARK) SANFORD, South CarolinaROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Maryland BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin   James L. Clarke, *Staff Director*Judith McCoy, *Chief Clerk*Bud Myers, *Minority Staff Director*
```
(1)

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND

GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

U.S. COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Type

of

Appt.

Pay

Plan

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

Washington, DC .... Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts ............... Earl A. Powell, III .............. PA PD ................ 4 years 05/22/12

Do .................... Vice-Chair, Commission of Fine Arts .............. Pamela Nelson .................... PA PD ................ 4 years 09/18/09

Do .................... Member, Commission of Fine Arts .................. John Belle ........................... PA PD ................ 4 years 04/13/09

Do .................... ......do .................................................................. Diana Balmori .................... PA PD ................ 4 years 05/12/12

Do .................... ......do .................................................................. Michael McKinnell ............. PA PD ................ 4 years 12/01/09

Do .................... ......do .................................................................. Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk .... PA PD ................ 4 years 05/22/12

Do .................... ......do .................................................................. Witold Rybczynski .............. PA PD ................ 4 years 06/16/12

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Type

of

Appt.

Pay

Plan

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

Washington, DC .... Director of National Intelligence ...................... Mike McConnell ................. PAS EX I ................

Do .................... Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.Donald Kerr ........................ PAS EX II ................

Do .................... General Counsel ................................................ Benjamin A. Powell ............ PAS EX IV ................

Do .................... Director, National Counterterrorism Center .. Michael E. Leiter ............... PAS EX II ................

Do .................... Associate Director of National Intelligence

and Chief Information Officer.

Vacant ................................. PAS OT ................ ................

Do .................... Program Manager for Information Sharing

Environment.

Thomas McNamara ............ PA OT ................ ................
EXHIBIT 23.1



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc.

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement File on Form S-8 (No.333-69175) of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated January 31, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statements
which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 2002
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
# **EXHIBIT32.2**

# ** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the March 31, 2006 Form 10-Q of Cornell Companies,Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Nieser, Chief Financial Officer,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  John R. Nieser                      |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John  R. Nieser, Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 10, 2006                             |

 

Note:  The certification the registrant furnishes inthis exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities ofthat Section. Registration Statements or other documents filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit, exceptas otherwise stated in such filing.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3164 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3164

To require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to disclose the minimum purchase 
   price that such an enterprise will accept on the short sale of a 
  residence financed by a mortgage purchased by such an enterprise in 
     order to make short sales a viable alternative to foreclosure.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 12, 2011

   Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Ms. Speier, and Mr. Honda) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to disclose the minimum purchase 
   price that such an enterprise will accept on the short sale of a 
  residence financed by a mortgage purchased by such an enterprise in 
     order to make short sales a viable alternative to foreclosure.

    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 ``Short Sale Transparency Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. SHORT SALE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

    (a) Disclosure.--The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency 
shall require the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal 
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, in any case in which such Association 
or Corporation denies the purchase of a residential mortgage loan made 
to finance the purchase, under a short sale, of a covered dwelling on 
the basis that the purchase price involved in the short sale is 
insufficient, to promptly disclose to the prospective seller of the 
covered dwelling the amount by which such purchase price was less than 
the minimum purchase price sufficient for such Association or 
Corporation to approve purchase of such mortgage.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions shall apply:
            (1) Short sale.--The term ``short sale'' means, with 
        respect to a residential mortgage loan on a covered dwelling, a 
        purchase of the dwelling that will result in proceeds in an 
        amount that is less than the remaining amount due under the 
        residential mortgage loan on the covered dwelling.
            (2) Covered dwelling.--The term ``covered dwelling'' means 
        a residential real property that--
                    (A) consists of from one to four dwelling units; 
                and
                    (B) is subject to a mortgage, deed or trust, or 
                other security interest that secures a residential 
                mortgage loan on which the mortgagor is delinquent on 
                payments due under the mortgage loan.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7759** 

DOMINIC EUGENE FOOTE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00877

- WO

- JLW )

Submitted : March 23, 2016 Decided: April 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dominic Eugene Foote, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dominic Eu gene Foote seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certif icate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that rea sonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently revi ewed the record and conclude that
Foote has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 20, 2020 s0420

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2020

160788

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160788

COA: 344364

Wayne CC: 17-001718-AR

JOSE NINO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals, which 

shall hold this case in abeyance pending its decision in People v Haywood (Docket No. 

345243). After Haywood is decided, the Court of Appeals shall determine whether that 

opinion controls in this case and, if it does, reconsider this case in light of Haywood.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's Consolidated Statement of Income and Consolidated
Balance Sheet for the twelve-month period ended June 30, 1999, 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>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         413,400
<SECURITIES>                                     2,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                  473,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                   153,800
<INVENTORY>                                     94,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,146,500
<PP&E>                                         447,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 299,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,710,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          986,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        (4,000)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     28,800
<OTHER-SE>                                     356,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,710,500
<SALES>                                      2,532,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,532,200
<CGS>                                        2,403,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,403,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               509,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                211,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            126,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       25,300
<NET-INCOME>                                   151,900
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39


</TABLE>