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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2791 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2791

 To permit each of the territories of the United States to provide and 
 furnish a statue honoring a citizen of the territory to be placed in 
 Statuary Hall in the same manner as statues honoring citizens of the 
                  States are placed in Statuary Hall.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2009

  Mr. Faleomavaega (for himself, Ms. Bordallo, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. 
  Pierluisi, and Mr. Sablan) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit each of the territories of the United States to provide and 
 furnish a statue honoring a citizen of the territory to be placed in 
 Statuary Hall in the same manner as statues honoring citizens of the 
                  States are placed in Statuary Hall.

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

SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF STATUES OF CITIZENS OF TERRITORIES IN STATUARY 
              HALL.

    (a) In General.--Section 1814 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new sentence: ``For purposes of this section, the term `State' shall 
include American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin 
Islands, except that the number of statues which may be provided and 
furnished by each such jurisdiction may not exceed one.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment Regarding Procedures for Replacement of 
Statues.--Section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 
2001 (2 U.S.C. 2132), is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c), by inserting after ``more than two 
        statues'' the following: ``(or, in the case of American Samoa, 
        Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin 
        Islands, more than one statue)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) For purposes of this section, the term `State' shall include 
American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin 
Islands.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2677 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2677

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for hate 
  crimes against members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2009

   Mr. Fleming (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Ms. 
  Fallin, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Gingrey of Georgia) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for hate 
  crimes against members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Military Personnel Protection Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. HATE CRIMES AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 249. Hate crimes against members of the Armed Forces
    ``Whoever willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through 
the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or 
incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, 
because of the actual or perceived status of such person as an active, 
guard, reserve, or retired member of the Armed Forces--
            ``(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
        accordance with this title, or both; and
            ``(2) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
        life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
                    ``(A) death results from the offense (and shall 
                also be subject to the penalty of death); or
                    ``(B) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt 
                to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to 
                commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to 
                kill.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``249. Hate crimes against members of the Armed Forces.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Francis H. Moses, Respondent.

[858 NYS2d 618]

Appeal from an order of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), entered December 22, 2006. The order granted that part of the omnibus motion of defendant seeking to suppress his statements to police officers.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed for reasons stated in the decision at County Court and the indictment is dismissed. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

            Consent of Independent Public Accountants

The Board of Directors
Sanguine Corporation:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
No. 333-102389 on Form S-8 of Sanguine Corporation and in the registration
statement No. 333-87140 on Form S-3 of Sanguine Corporation, of our report
dated March 12, 2002, relating to the financial statements of Sanguine
Corporation as of December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December 31,
2002, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sanguine Corporation.


                         /s/Tanner + Co.

Salt Lake City, Utah
May 25, 2004
GUARANTY OF LEASE

         For value received, the fact and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, and in consideration of the leasing of, and as an inducement to
H.C.B. CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as the "Lessor"), to enter into an
Equipment Lease with OCEAN, INC. (the "Lessee") of even date (the "Lease"), the
undersigned jointly and severally (the "Guarantor") guarantees unto Lessor, and
its successors and assigns, the punctual payment by Lessee of all rents and
other payments as and when due and payable under the Lease and any extension or
renewal thereof, and the full, faithful and punctual performance by Lessee of
all the covenants, agreements and provisions contained in the Lease on the part
of Lessee to be done, performed and observed during the term of the Lease and
any extension or renewal thereof.

         No consent by Lessor to any assignment of the Lease or any subletting
by Lessee under the Lease, and no acceptance by Lessor of any one or more
checks, notes, bills, other commercial paper or other property on account or in
payment of, or as security for, any lease payment or other payment to be paid by
Lessee in connection with any settlement or compromise made by Lessor with
Lessee with respect to any such payment, and no other allowance or indulgence
granted or permitted by Lessor shall in any way affect the liabilities of any
Guarantor hereunder, nor in any way release the Guarantor from any obligations
under the terms of this Guaranty.

         Guarantor hereby waives demand, notice of default or of non-payment,
every other notice and all suretyship defenses, and agrees to pay to Lessor any
and all costs and expenses, including court costs and reasonable attorney's
fees, incurred by Lessor in the enforcement of this Guaranty.

         It is specifically understood by Guarantor that, insofar as the context
herein so requires or admits, the term "Lessor" shall include Lessor's
successors and assigns, and the term "Lessee" shall include Lessee's successors
and assigns.

         Executed as a sealed instrument this 17th day of March, 1998.

WITNESS:                                     BOSTON RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                             By ________________________________
                                                George R. Chapdelaine,
                                                President and Treasurer


                                                ________________________________
                                                GEORGE R. CHAPDELAINE,
                                                Individually

                                                ________________________________
                                                JOHN P. POLCARI, Individually
[Cite as Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision , 125 Ohio St.3d 466, 2010-Ohio-2427.]

T OLEDO P UBLIC S CHOOLS B OARD OF E DUCATION , A PPELLEE , v . L UCAS C OUNTY B OARD OF R EVISION ET AL ., A PPELLEES ;

R EGINA M ANOR , L.L.C., ET AL ., A PPELLANTS
. [Cite as Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision , 125 Ohio St.3d 466, 2010-Ohio-2427.] Board of Tax Appeals’ decision reversed and cause remanded. (No. 2009-2102 — Submitted May 26, 2010 — Decided June 3, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2008-V-2192.

__________________ {¶ 1} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed on the authority of Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision , 124 Ohio St.3d 490, 2010-Ohio-253, 924 N.E.2d 34 5, and the cause is remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals for further proceedings.
B ROWN , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Spengler Nathanson, P.L.L., Michael W. Bragg, and Teresa L. Grigsby, for appellee Toledo Public Schools Board of Education. Douglas A. Wilkins, for appellants.

______________________
#### James Garten, Respondent, v Shearman & Sterling *LLP,*Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 80]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered December 12, 2007, which, in this legal malpractice action arising out of a loan transaction, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and common-law negligence, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has stated a cause of action for legal malpractice by alleging that “but for” defendant’s failure to prepare and procure documents necessary to provide him with a first-priority security interest, he would have been able to recover the amounts owed to him by the defaulting borrower *(see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell,*8 NY3d 428, 434 [2007]). The documentary evidence does not establish a defense as a matter of law *(see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*98 NY2d 314, 326-327 [2002]). Under “Documentation relating to Security Agreement,” defendant’s closing documents checklist included “[e]vidence that all other action that the Lender may deem necessary or desirable in order to perfect and protect the first priority liens and security interests created under the Security Agreement has been taken (including, without limitation, UCC-3 termination statements).” Thus, defendant was obligated not only to prepare the loan documents, but also to protect plaintiffs expectation that the agreement that he would hold a senior security interest was effective. However, defendant allegedly neither attempted to obtain such documentation from the senior creditors nor advised plaintiff of the hazards of proceeding with the loan without it.

Neither the borrower’s failure to repay the loan nor the senior creditors’ eventual failure to act honorably and adhere to the understanding that their liens were to be junior to plaintiffs relieves defendant of potential liability for its negligence. Nor is plaintiff responsible for his own loss simply because he executed the documents that defendant prepared for him *(see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner,*96 NY2d 300, 305 [2001]).

The causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fidu*208ciary duty, and common-law negligence are redundant of the legal malpractice cause of action *(see Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose,*251 AD2d 35, 38-39 [1998]; *Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc.,*10 AD3d 267, 271 [2004]; *Darby & Darby v VSI Intl.,*95 NY2d 308, 313 [2000]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Williams, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.
* 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50613 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE LUIS SANCHEZ-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-02-CR-717-1-AML

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jorge Luis Sanchez-Venegas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez-Venegas contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Sanchez-Venegas maintains thatNo. 03-50613 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Sanchez-Venegas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6483

DAVID CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR TRIPLETT; AL CANNON, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-04-363-8-18BI)

Submitted: August 12, 2005 Decided: August 29, 2005

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Holmes Hood, Jr., Roy

Pearce Maybank, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, Hugh

Willcox Buyck, BUYCK LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, Sandra

Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Chapman appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chapman v.

Triplett, No. CA-04-363-8-18BI (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20356

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rodolfo Sanchez Navarrete, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-29-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodolfo Sanchez 

Navarrete has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Navarrete has not filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 17, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20356 Document: 00516168888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2022
No. 21-20356

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 21-20356 Document: 00516168888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2022
IB 

Union Calendar No. 145 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2741 

[Report No. 111–260] 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Mr. WALDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2741 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the City of Hermiston, 

Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for other 

purposes. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2741 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

5 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

6 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

7 inserting after section 16ll the following: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECY9 CLING AND REUSE PROJECT. 

10 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera11 tion with the City of Hermiston, Oregon, is authorized to 

12 participate in the design, planning, and construction of 

13 permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse water in the City 

14 of Hermiston, Oregon. 

15 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

16 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

17 25 percent of the total cost. 

18 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

19 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

20 described in subsection (a).’’. 

21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

22 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

23 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

24 item relating to section 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project.’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 145 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2741 

[Report No. 111–260] 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

and reuse project, and for other purposes. the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling ize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorSEPTEMBER 21, 2009 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD 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 Quarterly Report of Total Identity Corp. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Matthew P. Dwyer, CEO and CFO of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS.
      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.








September
                21, 2006
            
            
            By:/s/ Matthew P. DwyerMatthew
                P. Dwyer, CEO, CFO, President, principal executive officer and principal
                financial and accounting officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.