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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3121 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3121

 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
Richard D. Winters, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on June 
 6, 1944, in Normandy, France, while an officer in the 101st Airborne 
                               Division.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 7, 2009

  Mr. Holden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
Richard D. Winters, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on June 
 6, 1944, in Normandy, France, while an officer in the 101st Airborne 
                               Division.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              RICHARD D. WINTERS FOR ACTS OF VALOR ON JUNE 6, 1944.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized and requested to 
award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 of title 10, United States 
Code, to Richard D. Winters, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, for the acts of 
valor described in subsection (b).
    (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in subsection 
(a) are the actions of Richard D. Winters, being conspicuous acts of 
gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call 
of duty, on D-day, June 6, 1944, in Normandy, France, while executive 
officer and acting commanding officer of Company E, 506th Parachute 
Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, in leading an assault to 
neutralize four enemy 105-millimeter cannon firing on Utah Beach.
    (c) Waiver of Time Limitations.--The award under subsection (a) may 
be made without regard to the time limitations specified in section 
3744(b) of title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 
with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons who served in 
the Army.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3402 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3402

To establish a minimum funding level for programs under the Victims of 
    Crime Act of 1984 for fiscal years 2010 to 2014 that ensures a 
reasonable growth in victim programs without jeopardizing the long-term 
               sustainability of the Crime Victims Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2009

 Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself and Mr. Costa) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a minimum funding level for programs under the Victims of 
    Crime Act of 1984 for fiscal years 2010 to 2014 that ensures a 
reasonable growth in victim programs without jeopardizing the long-term 
               sustainability of the Crime Victims Fund.

    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 ``Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act 
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. CRIME VICTIMS FUND.

    Section 1402(c) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
10601(c)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) The amount made available from the Fund for the purposes of 
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (d) shall be not less than--
            ``(A) $705,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
            ``(B) $867,150,000 for fiscal year 2011;
            ``(C) $1,066,594,500 for fiscal year 2012;
            ``(D) $1,311,911,235 for fiscal year 2013; and
            ``(E) $1,613,650,819 for fiscal year 2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 filing of this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Accelerize New Media, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the knowledge of the undersigned, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.













Dated:      March 8, 2012







By:
/s/ Brian RossBrian Ross

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3499

_____________________________
JPM O UTLOOK O NE L IMITED P ARTNERSHIP and G RANDE P ARK L IMITED P ARTNERSHIP , Appellant s ,

v.

F LORIDA H OUSING F INANCE C ORPORATION and HTG H AMMOCK R IDGE II, LLC
, Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation

. June 13, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OBERTS , and J AY , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________

Kimberly A. Ashby of Foley & Lardner LLP, Orlando
, for Appellant s

. Chris McGuire, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Housing Finance Corporation.

Maureen McCarthy Daughton of Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC, Tallahassee, for Appellee HTG Hammock Ridge II, LLC

.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR
                           PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Reality
Wireless Networks, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), for the quarter
ended June 30, 2002, the undersigned, (i) Victor Romero, President and Chief
Operations Officer of the Company during the quarter ended June 30, 2002 and
currently Chief Operations Officer (but not President of the Company), and
Director, and (ii) Rick Ramirez, Vice President, Business Development;
Secretary, Treasurer and Director of the Company, do each hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  August 14, 2002                    /s/ Victor Romero
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Victor Romero
                                          Chief Operations Officer
                                          and Director (and President during the
                                          quarter ended June 30, 2002)

Date:  August 14, 2002                    /s/ Rick Ramirez
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Rick Ramirez
                                          Vice President, Business Development;
                                          Secretary; Treasurer; and Director
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
                                                                    ------------



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Valley Industries, Inc. and
 Z Leasing Company:



We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report, dated June 17, 1996, with
respect to the combined statements of earnings, stockholders' and partners'
equity, and cash flows of Valley Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries and Z Leasing
Company (A General Partnership) for the year ended January 31, 1996, in the Form
10-K for the year ended June 27, 1998 of U.S. Foodservice.  We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of such report in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (333-59785) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 33-88144, 33-88146,
33-81011, 333-37359, 333-43185 and 333-47759) of U.S. Foodservice.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
September 22, 1998
**EXHIBIT
24.2**
 
 **POWER
OF ATTORNEY**
 
 
 
 The
undersigned, a member of the Board of Managers or an officer of MIDAMERICAN
FUNDING, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company (the "Company"), hereby
constitutes and appoints Douglas L. Anderson and James D. Stallmeyer and each of
them, as his/her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for and in his/her stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign on his/her behalf the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 and to execute any amendments thereto
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and all other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and applicable
stock exchanges, with the full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing necessary or advisable to all intents and purposes as he/she
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact and agent, or his/her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 Executed
as of February 28, 2005.
 
 
 /s/
      David L. Sokol
    
    /s/
      Gregory E. AbelDAVID
      L. SOKOL
    
    GREGORY
      E. ABEL/s/
      Patrick J. Goodman
    
    /s/
      Ronald W. RoskensPATRICK
      J. GOODMAN
    
    RONALD
      W. ROSKENS
#### Dean Eric PALMER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. E.F. THOMPSON, INC., Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-1838.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2010.

Decided: April 7, 2011.

Dean Eric Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Blaine Martin, McGuire, Woods, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in pai't by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cix-cuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dean Ex-ic Palmer appeals the district court’s order dismissing this employment discrimination action for failure to state a claim. With respect to Palmex-’s claim of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, we conclude that Palmer set fox-th facts sufficient to state a prima facie claim of discriminatory discharge. *See Miles v. Dell, Inc.,*429 F.3d 480, 486-87 & n. 3 (4th Cir.2005). We, of coxxrse, offer no opinion on whether plaintiff presents any issue of triable fact. We accordingly vacate that portioix of the district court’s order related to the Title VII claim and remand for further proceedings.

With respect to the claim of a violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Palmer v. E.F. Thompson, Inc.,*No. 2:10-cv-00051-TEM (E.D. Va. June 23, 2010).

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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.*
Exhibit 32.1
   CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with this Quarterly Report of River
Hawk Aviation, Inc.(the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Calvin
Humphrey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best
of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of River Hawk Aviation, Inc.
  Date: 
August 14, 2008
  By: /s/
      Calvin HumphreyCalvin
      HumphreyChief
      Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer,
  Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephanie O. LANGLOIS, also known as Stephanie O’Neil, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-31009

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 8, 2011.

Sharan E. Lieberman, Diane Hollens-head Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephanie O’Neil, Robin Elise Schul-berg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Stephanie O. Langlois, also known as Stephanie O’Neil (O’Neil), appeals the sentence imposed for forging a government seal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 506. The district court sentenced O’Neil to six months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release and ordered her to pay $15,000 in restitution.

In the written plea agreement, O’Neil waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence except that she reserved the right to appeal a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. Because the Government elects not to enforce the appeal waiver, the waiver is not binding and does not bar the instant appeal. *See United States v. Story,*439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.2006).

O’Neil contends that the district court committed reversible plain error by failing to provide her with an opportunity to allo-cute. O’Neil’s claim of error is subject to plain error review because she did not object to the district court’s failure to provide her with an opportunity to allocute. *See United States v. Reyna,*358 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir.2004) (en banc). The invitation to allocute complied with Rule *43032(i)(4)(A)(ii). *See United States v. Hernandez,*291 F.3d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir.2002). The district court was not obligated to renew the invitation to allocute after it discussed O’Neil’s mental health with her mother. *See id.*at 316. We do not address O’Neil’s argument that she was denied the right to allocute because the invitation to allocute preceded the victim allocution and was not renewed thereafter because she raises the argument for the first time in her reply brief. *See United States v. Rodriguez,*602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir.2010).

O’Neil has failed to demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion to strike the appendix to the reply brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001088381
<NAME> SPECTRUM BANCORPORATION, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          18,434
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                25,238
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     95,612
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        483,569
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 647,609
<DEPOSITS>                                     523,083
<SHORT-TERM>                                    23,248
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,255
<LONG-TERM>                                     52,055
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,700
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 647,609
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,558
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,494
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   267
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,319
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,159
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,197
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,122
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      396
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,241
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,087
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,980
<EPS-BASIC>                                       27.1
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     27.1
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.16
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,416
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,263
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,186
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,020
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      238
<RECOVERIES>                                        49
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,227
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,227
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5077 September Term, 2020

1:21-cv-00203-UNA

Filed On: July 7, 2021

Fernando Fontanez,

Appellant

v.

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Wilkins and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion to

appoint counsel, and the motion to expedite ruling on the motion to appoint counsel, it

is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied and the motion to

expedite be dismissed as moot. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to

appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of

success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed

February 12, 2021, and March 4, 2021 be affirmed. The district court properly

dismissed the complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (explaining that a complaint is frivolous “where it

lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). Appellant has not shown any abuse of

discretion in the district court’s denial of reconsideration. See Firestone v. Firestone,

76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Additionally, appellant has not

shown that the district court erred in denying him leave to file an amended complaint. 

See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir.

2004) (arguments not raised on appeal are forfeited); Hettinga v. United States,

677 F.3d 471, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (“A district court may deny a motion to
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5077 September Term, 2020

amend a complaint as futile if the proposed claim would not survive a motion to

dismiss.”). Because appellant has shown no basis for the requested relief, his request

for an injunction and compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2679, is denied. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2