alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2661 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the 

penalty for violations of section 119 (relating to protection of individuals performing certain official duties), 

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, 
2 

•HR 2661 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Court Security En3 hancement Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INCREASE OF PENALTY. 

5 Section 119(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’. 

7 SEC. 3. RESOLVING A WORKLOAD REQUIREMENT FOR SEN8 IOR JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN COURT GOV9 ERNANCE. 

10 Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

11 amended by striking ‘‘(including any judge in regular ac12 tive service and any judge who has retired from regular 

13 active service under section 371(b) of this title, when des14 ignated and assigned to the court to which such judge was 

15 appointed)’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2661 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase 

ficial duties), and for other purposes. to protection of individuals performing certain ofthe penalty for violations of section 119 (relating
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0367 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. MATTHEW RYAN AILER,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# FILED OCT 0 6 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State or rtilnntaria ORDER

Upon consideration ofAppellant's motion for extension oftirne, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant's opening brief shall be filed on or before November 8, 2021. DATED this day ofOctober, 2021. For the Court,
ChiefJustice 10/06/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0367
---

Exhibit 99.9

KPMG LLP
     Telephone   (604) 691-3000Chartered Accountants
     Fax                (604) 691-3031PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street
     Internet         www.kpmg.caVancouver BC V7Y 1K3Canada
  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors 
Minefinders Corporation Ltd.
We consent to the inclusion in this this annual report on Form 40-F of: our auditors Report dated February 25, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of Minefinders Corporation Ltd. (the Company) as at December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2009;our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 25, 2010 on the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-103893, 333-108001, 333-111255, and 333-117611) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-138709 and 333-155590) on Form F-10 of the Company of our report dated February 25, 2010 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as at December 31, 2008 and 2009 and the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2009 and our report dated February 25, 2010 with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, included herein.  //s// KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, Canada 
March 1, 2010 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMGnetwork of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swisscooperative. KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.


---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of theundersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WilsonsThe Leather Experts Inc.          Date: December 16, 2003 /s/ Joel N. Waller        Joel N. Waller, Chairman    and Chief Executive Officer    (principal executive officer)       Date: December 16, 2003           /s/ Peter G. Michielutti        Peter G. Michielutti, Executive Vice President    and Chief Financial Officer    (principal financial and accounting officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2972 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Conrad DeRouen, 

Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2009 

Mr. BOUSTANY (for himself, Mr. CAO, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. 

MELANCON, Mr. SCALISE, and Mr. FLEMING) 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 115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, 

as the ‘‘Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONRAD DEROUEN, JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 115 West Edward Street in 

6 Erath, Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2972 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Conrad DeRouen, Jr. 

5 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1


Consent of KPMG LLP, Independent Public Accountant


The Board of Directors
BioSource International, Inc.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
33-91838)  on Form S-8 of  BioSource  International,  Inc.  of our report  dated
February  14, 2003  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of  BioSource
International,  Inc. and  subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
related  consolidated   statements  of  operations,   stockholders'  equity  and
comprehensive  income  (loss)  and  cash  flows  for  each of the  years  in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and the related  financial  statement
schedule,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2002 annual  report on Form
10-K of BioSource International, Inc.

/S/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 25, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Marine Drilling Companies, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference of our report dated January 23, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Marine Drilling Companies, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in
the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Marine Drilling Companies,
Inc., in the following registration statements of Marine Drilling Companies,
Inc.: (i) No. 33-56920 on Form S-8 dated January 11, 1993, (ii) No. 33-61901 on
Form S-8 dated August 17, 1995, (iii) No. 333-6995 on Form S-4 dated June 27,
1996, and amended July 11, 1996, (iv) No. 333-6997 on Form S-3 dated June 27,
1996, and amended July 11, 1996 and supplement dated November 22, 1996, (v) No.
333-56379 on Form S-3 dated June 9, 1998 and supplements dated May 21, 1999 and
January 5, 2000, and (vi) No. 333-48968 on Form S-8 dated October 31, 2000, and
amended on November 2, 2000.




KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
February 23, 2001
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2843 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 

Administration 

AN ACT 

To provide for the joint appointment of the Architect of 

the Capitol by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate, the chair and ranking minority member 

of the Committee on House Administration of the House 

of Representatives, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules 

and Administration of the Senate, the chairs and ranking 

minority members of the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and Senate, and two 

other designated members of the Senate, and for other 

purposes. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2843 RFS

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 ‘‘Architect of the Capitol 

5 Appointment Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT AND TERM OF SERVICE OF ARCHI7 TECT OF THE CAPITOL. 

8 (a) APPOINTMENT.—The Architect of the Capitol 

9 shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House 

10 of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Sen11 ate, the majority and minority leaders of the House of 

12 Representatives and Senate, the chair and ranking minor13 ity member of the Committee on House Administration 

14 of the House of Representatives, the chair and ranking 

15 minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 

16 Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the chair 

17 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules 

18 and Administration of the Senate, the chairs and ranking 

19 minority members of the Committees on Appropriations 

20 of the House of Representatives and Senate, a member 

21 of the Senate to be designated by the majority leader of 

22 the Senate, and a member of the Senate to be designated 

23 by the minority leader of the Senate. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2843 RFS

1 (b) TERM OF SERVICE.—The Architect of the Capitol 

2 shall be appointed for a term of 10 years, and may be 

3 reappointed for additional terms. 

4 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 319 of the 

5 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C. 

6 1801) is repealed. 

7 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

8 respect to appointments made on or after the date of the 

9 enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 3, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose BARRON-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40733

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Barron-Gonzalez (Barron) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Barron has not filed a response. We have 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Paramount Insurance Company et al., Appellants, v Eli Construction General Contractor and Interior Design, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[665 NYS2d 857]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.H.O.), entered November 12, 1996, which, in a declaratory judgment action involving plaintiff insurers’ obligation to defend and indemnify defendant insured in an underlying action brought by codefendant, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiffs’ brief, declared plaintiffs to be so obligated after ruling, upon codefendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, that plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case of the insured’s noncooperation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer correctly held that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to show that the insured’s attitude, af*39ter its cooperation was diligently sought with efforts reasonably calculated to obtain it, was one of “ ‘willful and avowed obstruction’ ” *(Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co.,*19 NY2d 159, 168). Plaintiffs were not precluded from introducing the audiotapes of their investigator’s interviews with the insured’s principal. Rather, the J.H.O. properly advised plaintiffs that he would have to listen to the audiotapes themselves before deciding whether the transcripts, which contained many obvious omissions, fairly and accurately reflected conversations contained therein *(see, People v Norwood,*142 AD2d 885, *lv denied*72 NY2d 960). For some reason, the tapes were never played. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D24-0200

LT Case No. 2003-CF-00918

_____________________________

DAVID L. FARIES, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.801 appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County.

Joel Fritton, Judge.

David L. Faries, Jr., East Palatka, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. 

Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

February 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

EDWARDS, C.J., SOUD, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Gonzalez HUERTA, a.k.a. Enrique Sierra Gonzalez, a.k.a. Gustavo Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50182.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 9, 2011.

James Michael Left, Michael J. Raphael, Sandra Hesun Shin, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gary Paul Bureham, Burcham & Zugman, San Diego, CA, Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Enrique Gonzalez-Huerta appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Gonzalez-Huerta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to discuss the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and to explain the deviation from the Guidelines range. We disagree. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Gonzalez-Huerta also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors were not individually applied to his case, and because it is unduly harsh and creates an unwarranted disparity with similarly situated defendants. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Gonzalez-Huerta additionally contends that the district court failed to provide notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). The record reflects that the district court varied from the Guidelines under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and it had no obligation to provide Gonzalez-Huerta notice. See *Irizarry v. United States,*553 U.S. 708, 714, 128 S.Ct. 2198, 171 L.Ed.2d 28 (2008) (limiting the Rule 32(h) notice requirement to departures under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)).

Contrary to Gonzalez-Huerta’s contention, he is not entitled to judicial estoppel.

In accordance with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. *6802000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 89-503 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LINDA J. GARRYMORE, 

f/k/a LINDA J. WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

MICHAEL W. WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable John W. Henson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Michael Donahoe, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Thomas W. Trigg, Missoula, Montana 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MOdTANA 

Submitted on Briefs: June 20, 

Decided: July 19, 
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Linda J. Garrymore appeals the order of the District Court for 

the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, modifying custody 

of the partiest daughter, S.M.W., by placing S.M.W. in the custody 

of Michael W. Williams. We affirm. 

The issue is whether the District Court had jurisdiction. 

When the marriage between Garrymore and Williams was dissolved, custody of their daughter, S.M.W., was placed with 

Garrymore. The order from which this appeal is taken modified 

custody so that S .M.W. is now in the custody of her father. At the 

time the modification order was entered, a separate dependent and 

neglect proceeding was pending before the Youth Court for Missoula 

County relating to Garrymorels custody of S.M.W. Garrymorels 

argument that the District Court was without jurisdiction is based 

solely upon the existence of that dependent and neglect proceeding 

in Youth Court. 

Section 41-3-103, MCA, provides that a youth court has 

concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in dependent and 

neglect proceedings. We conclude that the District Court retained 

jurisdiction to modify custody in this case. See also Matter of 

C.C. (Mont. 1989), 772 P.2d 857, 46 St.Rep. 773. Further, we point 

out that there is no conflict between the orders of the District 

Court and the Youth Court in these matters and that the record 
contains substantial evidence to support the District Court's 

findings and conclusions. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

~ffirmed. Let remittitur issue forthwith. 

We Concur: 

Justices /'
#### Sharon Perry, Respondent, v Antonio Millio et al., Appellants.

[667 NYS2d 387]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered November 13, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

After starting to fty some chicken in the kitchen of her apartment, the plaintiff went into her living room and fell asleep. When she awoke a while later, she smelled smoke. Rushing to the kitchen, the plaintiff snatched the smoking skillet off of the stove, splattering herself with hot oil. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued her landlords, alleging that they were responsible for her injuries because they had failed to maintain her smoke alarm in proper working order.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. A landlord is not liable for his tenant’s injuries where, as here, there is no causal connection between his purported negligence and the plaintiff’s accident *(see, e.g., Martinez v Lazaroff,*48 NY2d 819; *Laureano v Louzoun,*165 AD2d 866; *Gonzalez v Pius,*138 AD2d 453; *see also, Kleckley v Trump Mgt.,*237 AD2d 411). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 20

- 1972

_____________________________ D UANE W OULLARD , Petitioner ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 9, 2020

P ER C URIAM

. D ISMISSED

. See Logan v. State , 846 So. 2d 472, 479 (Fla. 2003).
R OBERTS , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Duane Woullard, pro se , Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.