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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2585 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2585

 To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to 
provide for fixed deficit targets to reduce the deficit to zero by the 
                        end of fiscal year 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 1993

  Mr. Gekas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to 
provide for fixed deficit targets to reduce the deficit to zero by the 
                        end of fiscal year 2000.

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

SECTION 1. FIXED MAXIMUM DEFICIT AMOUNTS.

    (a) Maximum Deficit Amount.--Section 3(a) of the Congressional 
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting at 
the end the following:
            ``(11) The term `maximum deficit amount' means--
                    ``(A) with respect to fiscal year 1994, 
                $322,800,000,000;
                    ``(B) with respect to fiscal year 1995, 
                $269,000,000,000;
                    ``(C) with respect to fiscal year 1996, 
                $215,200,000,000;
                    ``(D) with respect to fiscal year 1997, 
                $161,400,000,000;
                    ``(E) with respect to fiscal year 1998, 
                $107,600,000,000;
                    ``(F) with respect to fiscal year 1999, 
                $53,800,000,000; and
                    ``(G) with respect to fiscal year 2000, zero.''.
    (b) Repeal of Title VI.--Title VI of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 is repealed.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL 
              ACT OF 1985.

    (a) Applicability of Earlier Version of the Act.--Part C of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as in effect 
immediately before November 5, 1990, for fiscal year 1992 shall apply 
to each of fiscal years 1994 through 1999, as the case may be, and for 
fiscal year 1993 shall apply to fiscal year 2000.
    (b) Inapplicability of Current Version of the Act.--Part C of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as in effect 
immediately before the date of enactment of this Act, shall not apply 
to fiscal years 1994 through 2000.
    (c) Extension of Expiration Date.--Section 274(b) of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking 
``1995'' and inserting ``2001''.

                                 <all>
```
Number of Samples Required to Detect Violations with Predefined Probabilities 

Scheduled sampling is conducted to provide some assurance of detection of a violation that affects a given 

percentage of the sample population. 

The statistical table provides the calculated number of samples required to ensure detection of atleast

one violation that affects a given percentage of the sampled population. Statistically, for a binomial

distribution with sample size “n” and violation rate “v” (in decimal), if v is the true violation rate in the

population and n is the number of samples, the probability, p, of finding atleast one violation among

the n samples (assuming random sampling) is p = 1 − (1 − v)

n

For example, if the true violation rate is 1% the probability of detecting at least one violation with

sample sizes of 230,300,390,460, and800 are 90%, 95%, 98%, 99%, and 99.97% respectively.

In the table below the probability of detecting atleast one violation witha sample size of 800 is italicized

and bolded.

Percentage % 

Violative in the 

population (v)

Number of samples required to detect

at least one violation in (n) samples

with a probability (p)

0.90 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.9997

Sample Size required “n”

10 22 29 37 44 77

5 45 59 76 90 158

1 230 300 389 459 807

0.57 403 525 684 806 1,419

0.50 460 598 780 919 1,618

0.37 620 808 1,055 1,242 2,188

0.29 793 1,032 1,347 1,586 2,793

0.10 2,302 2,995 3,910 4,603 8,108

The procedure to calculate the required sample size needed:

pp = 1 − (1 − vv)nn  Probability of detecting at least one violation in n sample of binomial

distribution with violation rate v

1 − pp = (1 − vv) nn  Subtract one from both side of the equation. This gives the probability

of detecting No violations in n samples

log(1 − pp) = log(1 − vv)nn  Apply logarithmic function to both side of the equation

log(1 − pp) = n∗ log(1− vv)  A logarithmic function property 

nn = log(1−pp)

log(1−vv)  Sample size based on violation rate (v) and probability of detecting (p)
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the report of Inuvo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard K. Howe, 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:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

|                      |                                                                     
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 | /s/ Richard K. Howe                                                 
|                      | Richard K. Howe
Chief Executive Officer, principal
executive 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.
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 American Retirement Villas Properties II, a California limited partnership (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.



|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    John A. Moore                                                                           
|                                                                                               
|John A. Moore Chief Executive Officer of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. its Managing General Partner



November 14, 2003
Reimbursable Service Resources

Background

The FMIA, PPIA, and EPIA specify inspections that must be performed to ensure that meat, poultry and 

egg products and not adulterated and are properly labeled. FSIS does not collect fees for these 

mandatory inspection services at official establishments and plants, except for holiday and overtime 

pay.

In addition to mandatory inspection, FSIS provides inspection services to accommodate business needs, 

such as providing certifications necessary to meet requirements of importing countries. Fees are 

collected from all facilities (including official establishments) that request inspectin and certification 

services that are not required by the statues. These types of inspection services, called voluntary 

reimbursable services, are authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act.

Export Certification Services

When performed in official establishments the issuance of export certificates that are required by 9 CFR

Part 322 and 381.104 through 381.111 are not reimbursable services. However, services are 

reimbursable when provided to certify that product for export to a foreign country meets a standard or 

requirement not imposed by FSIS regulations. For example, the time required to accomplish activities 

such as Export Verification (see FSIS Notice 09-06) and the execution of certifications that are in addition 

to FSIS requlatory requirements are reimbursable.

A purchaser, supplier, and exporter can request export certification services either on the premises of 

the official establishment or on premises other than the official establishment as set out in 9 CFR 322(a). 

When export certification services are provided on premises other than official establishment, the time 

required to render such service, including travel time used in connection iwht providing the service, is 

reimbursable. 

Fees for all reimbursable services are charged for the time required to render such service. In addition, 

charges may be made to cover the time required for Inspection Program Employees to research specific 

foreign country requirements.

If you have questions about reimbursable services, contact OPPD at (402) 221-7400 or askFSIS
[No. 25571-9-III.

Division Three.

August 23, 2007.]

#### Larry Ridge, *Respondent,*v. Nancy Mares, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Asotin County, No. 06-2-00129-5, William D. Acey, J., entered September 18, 2006. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kulik, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Brown, J.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31292 Summary Calendar

SABRINA PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHNNIE JONES, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF LOUISIANA, RICHARD IEYOUB, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1127-K

- - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sabrina Parks, Louisiana prisoner # 94857, argues that the district court erred in denying her habeas corpus application in which she alleged that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel; her jury was illegally impaneled; and that she was coerced into giving a confession and advising authorities of the location of the murder weapon.No. 96-31292 -2- We have reviewed the record, including the state-court record, and the briefs of the parties, and affirm the denial of the habeas application substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parks v. Jones , No. 95-CB-1127-K (E.D. La. Oct. 28, 1996).
AFFIRMED.
United States Department of Agriculture

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE'S (FSIS') 

 COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION (CID) 

CID investigates violations of the food safety, food defense, and other 

consumer protection statutory requirements, controls unsafe or violative 

products through detentions, civil seizures, and voluntary recalls; and 

develops cases through surveillance and investigation activities to ensure 

that appropriate criminal, administrative, and civil sanctions are carried 

out according to Agency laws, regulations and directives.

Questions 

If you have questions about FSIS investigations or wish to request 

more information, please call the CID Regional Director at:

FSIS REQUESTS YOUR ASSISTANCE 

CID Investigators do not carry 

weapons. If they encounter violent 

subjects or hostile and dangerous 

situations, they require police 

assistance. When Compliance 

Investigators believe they may 

encounter resistance, they make 

advance arrangements for Federal 

or State Police assistance. If a 

hostile situation develops without 

warning, they call local police. 

These calls must be handled as any

FSIS FORM 1420-4 (09/30/2015)

On June 21, 2000, two 

Federal Investigators and 

one State Investigator were 

shot and killed during a food 

safety inquiry at a sausage 

plant. A second State 

Investigator escaped after 

being fired upon and chased 

down a busy street. The 

Investigators called for local 

police back up. Because the 

request was made calmly 

and in a measured tone, 

back up was not 

immediately dispatched. The 

perpetrator was arrested 

and convicted on three 

counts of capital murder and 

one count of attempted 

murder.

that Compliance Investigators may speak calmly to avoid aggravating the 

situation. Ask if the call is urgent.

other request for law enforcement assistance. Please keep in mind
Order entered September 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00689-CR

AMON TAWANDA DZWAIRO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-82237-2013

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On August 18, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment for the 

record; (3) Indu Bailey is the court reporter who recorded the proceedings; (4) Ms. Bailey’s 

explanation for the delay in filing the record is her workload; and (5) Ms. Bailey requested six 

weeks from the September 11, 2015 findings to file the reporter’s record.

We ORDER Indu Bailey, official court reporter of the 219th Judicial District Court, to 

file the complete reporter’s record, including all exhibits admitted into evidence, within 
FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this order. Because the record is already more than two 

months overdue, no further extensions will be granted.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Indu Bailey, official court reporter, 

219th Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from United
Investors Income Properties 1996 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000830056
<NAME> UNITED INVESTORS INCOME PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             627
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       14
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          12,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,178
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,287
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.96<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2184 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2184

    To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on chromotropic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 1993

 Mr. Ravenel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on chromotropic acid.

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

SECTION 1. CHROMOTROPIC ACID.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12  1,8-Dihydroxy-napthalene-3, 6-disulfonic acid, also known                   No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        as Chromotropic Acid (CAS No. 129-96-4) (provided for in                                                      31/94           ''
                        subheading 2908.20.20)..................................  Free                                                                . 

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4809 CAROLYN STOVER ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-10-AW) Submitted: May 10, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELWalter L. Blair, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., Hyattsville, Maryland; C. William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Odessa P. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Carolyn Stover Roberts appeals the district court's amended judgment modifying her restitution payment schedule. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We find no merit in Roberts' argument that she was not liable to pay the full amount of restitution as ordered by the district court and contained in the judgment of conviction. Full restitution was within the range permitted by her plea agreement. At sentencing, the court informed her that she would be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of restitution along with her now-d eceased husband. We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion inmodifying the judgment of conviction after Roberts received a substantial monetary settlement from Montgomery County b ecause a police officer shot her husband, causing his death. The receipt of thesettlement sufficiently changed her circumstances to warrant accelerating the restitution payment schedule. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) (1994). In addition, we find that the seven-day time period under Rule 35(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to a Government's motion seeking modification of a restitution order under § 3664(k).Finally, we conclude that Roberts' due process rights were not violated when the district court declined to hold a hearing on the Government's motion to modify the restitution order. Roberts was servedwith notice of the motion and had an opportunity to respond. In addition, the district court's modification of the judgment of conviction did not violate Roberts' protection against double jeopardy. She was always obligated to pay the full amount of restitution and the district court's modification did not alter that obligation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's amended judgment of conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-34313, 333-33860, 333-56612, 33-88270, 333-108867, 333-120516 and 333-132499) of Ameristar Casinos, Inc. pertaining to the 2002 Non-Employee Directors’Stock Election Plan, the Amended and Restated Management Stock Incentive Plan, theAmended and Restated 1999 Stock Incentive Plan and the Deferred Compensation Planof Ameristar Casinos, Inc. of our reports dated March 12, 2007, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Ameristar Casinos, Inc., Ameristar Casinos, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Ameristar Casinos,Inc., included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPLas Vegas, Nevada
#### Joel A. DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. MCCABE, Sheriff's Department, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-7396.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2011.

Joel A. Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps, Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joel A. Davis, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Davis v. McCabe,*No. 3:09-cv-00335-HEH, 2010 WL 3671864 (E.D.Va. Sept. 15, 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.*