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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2411 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2411

               For the relief of Leteane Clement Monatsi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 1993

  Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               For the relief of Leteane Clement Monatsi.

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

SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR LETEANE CLEMENT MONATSI.

    (a) In General.--Leteane Clement Monatsi shall be classified as a 
child under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
for purposes of approval of a relative visa petition filed under 
section 204 of such Act by his adoptive parent and the filing of an 
application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Leteane Clement Monatsi enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 
if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the petition and the application for 
issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of 
status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Leteane Clement Monatsi, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
for the current or next following fiscal year, the worldwide level of 
family-sponsored immigrants under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Leteane 
Clement Monatsi shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### Stephen Otto REITZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles HARRISON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-56858.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 10, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 20, 2010.

*213Lisa Michelle Bassis, Law Office of Lisa M. Bassis, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Scott Alan Taryle, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*214MEMORANDUM **

The state appellate court’s denial of Reitz’s claim that the trial court violated his due process rights by limiting the testimony of his expert witnesses was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Defendants do not have an absolute right to present evidence relevant to their defense, *see Crane v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 683, 690-91, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), and the state court neither invoked a “per se” evidentiary rule, *see Rock v. Arkansas,*483 U.S. 44, 56-57, 62, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987), nor so drastically limited Reitz’s ability to examine his expert witnesses as to raise due process concerns, *see Chambers v. Mississippi,*410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973).

The state court’s denial of Reitz’s Confrontation Clause claim was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Here, none of the casual remarks by Eva to friends and family were “testimonial” within the meaning of *Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 51-52, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), or *Davis v. Washington,*547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), because the remarks were not made “under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that [they] would be available for use at a later trial,” *Parle v. Runnels,*387 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting *Crawford,*541 U.S. at 52, 124 S.Ct. 1354) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The state court’s denial of Reitz’s claim that the admission of six hearsay statements by the victim violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The hearsay statements were cumulative of other testimony and did not “render[ ] the trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate due process.” *Randolph v. California,*380 F.3d 1133, 1147 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting *Windham v. Merkle,*163 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir.1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the admission of such statements was a state law error, such an error cannot, on its own, support the granting of habeas relief. *See Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Chris T. Sharng, Chief Financial Officer of Natural Health Trends Corp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Natural Health Trends Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 8, 2006 /s/ Chris T. Sharng     Chris T. Sharng  Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15
- 7128

LARRY RAY WARD, a/k/a Red , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr
- 00286

- D

- 1 ; 5:13

- cv
- 00828

- D )

Submitted : April 28, 2017 Decided: May 16, 2017

Before SHEDD , AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion

.
Larry Ray Ward , Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh , North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry Ray Ward , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

. Ward has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating th at 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challengin g the validity of his detention. See United
States v. Poole , 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008) . The district court lacked jurisdiction

over Ward’s petition , Rice v. Rivera , 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) , and we therefore modify its order, Ward v. United States , No. 5:11

- cr
- 00286

- D

- 1 (E.D.N.C. June 25, 2015), to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the dismissal as
modified , 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### In re PERRY H. KOPLIK & SONS, INC., Debtor. Michael S. Fox, as Litigation Trustee of Perry H. Koplik & Sons, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Koplik, Marc N. Siegel, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alvin Siegel, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13-3472-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 21, 2014.

Michael L. Cook, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLC. (Nancy L. Kourland, Sanford P. Ro-sen, Rosen & Associates P.C., on the brief) New York, N .Y., for Appellants.

Present ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Michael Koplik and Marc N. Siegel, as the personal representative of the Estate of Alvin Siegel, appeal from the August 14, 2018 memorandum and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.), imposing personal liability on Koplik and Alvin Sie-gel for certain breaches of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyances. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

In this bankruptcy case, the lower court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); *cf. Forsdick v. Turgeon,*812 F.2d 801, 801 (2d Cir.1987). The district court, assisted by the bankruptcy court’s extensive proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, ably set forth a careful and thorough analysis of the claims and the law. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth by district court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                            9604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    75009
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1859
<INVENTORY>                                     144058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                240713
<PP&E>                                          553504
<DEPRECIATION>                                  111943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  756752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           150027
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      279433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    756752
<SALES>                                         526644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                530603
<CGS>                                           472340
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   472340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  15581
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5959
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9622
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9622
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        

</TABLE>
**
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION
**

Washington, D.C. 20549

**
FORM 10-Q
**

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For quarterly period ended June 30, 2005
Commission file number: 0-16946
**LabOne, Inc.

10101 Renner Blvd.

Lenexa, Kansas 66219

(913) 888-1770

Incorporated in Missouri

I.R.S. Employer Identification Number: 43-1039532

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reportsrequired to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theRegistrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to suchfiling requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes /X/    No /  /
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes /X/    No /  /
Number of shares outstanding of the only class of Registrant's common stock, $.01 par value, as of July 29, 2005 - 17,489,058.

**LabOne, Inc.

 

Form 10-Q for the Second Quarter, 2005

Table of Contents

PART I.   FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.   Financial Statements:

   Consolidated Balance Sheets

   Consolidated Statements of Operations

   Consolidated Statement of Stockholders' Equity

   Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

   Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ITEM 2.   Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

   Second Quarter Analysis      

   Year to Date Analysis      

   Financial Position, Liquidity and Capital Resources 

ITEM 3.   Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

ITEM 4.   Controls and Procedures

PART II.   OTHER      INFORMATION

SIGNATURES****
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1355-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1355-DR), dated January 5, 2001, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 10, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective January 10, 2001.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)

Lacy E. Suiter, 

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 01-3931 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
#### Travis Roy BASS, et al., Plaintiffs, Timothy Justin Tacy, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan BENTON, Highlands County Sheriff Office, Defendantt-Appellee.

No. 10-12291

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2011.

Timothy Justin Tacy, Sr., Sebring, FL, pro se.

Highlands County Jai Warden, Inmate Trust Fund, Sebring, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Office of the Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BARKETT, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Tacy, a former prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s dismissal *of his 42*U.S.C. § 1983 class action civil rights complaint against Susan Benton, the Sheriff of Highlands County, Florida and the Sheriffs Office Detention Bureau for violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On appeal, Tacy argues that Benton, acting under the color of state law, deprived the prisoners and them friends and family of rights protected under federal law and the Constitution in restricting the type, size, and content of the mail prisoners received while incarcerated in the Highlands County jail. Tacy argues that no part of his class action complaint is frivolous, and therefore, should not be dismissed. Lastly, Tacy argues that because § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 indicates that Congress assigned federal courts with the role of protecting constitutional rights, we must reverse and remand the case to the district court for trial.

We review *de novo*the district court’s dismissal of Tacy’s § 1983 action. *Grayson v. King,*460 F.3d 1328, 1336 n. 5 (11th Cir.2006). We have interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1654, the general provision permitting parties to proceed *pro se,*as providing “a personal right that does not extend to the representation of the interests of others.” *Timson v. Sampson,*518 F.3d 870, 873 *299(llth Cir.2008). We have affirmed the dismissal of the portion of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief on behalf of fellow inmates. *Massimo v. Henderson,*468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir.1972); *see Oxendine v. Williams,*509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975) (holding that it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action).

Following the holding of *Massimo,*Tacy may not seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmates. 468 F.2d at 1210. Because Tacy may not represent the plaintiffs in a class action suit, the district court properly dismissed Tac^s § 1983 complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
# Content start

## Private Sector

  Bring your wealth of knowledge and experience related to private industry and its best practices. We are seeking the right talent to bring their expertise to the public sector to adapt private industry best practices within the government!

Review current FRTIB job openings
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1356-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Texas, (FEMA-1356-DR), dated January 8, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 12, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 8, 2001: Armstrong, Bailey, Deaf Smith, Hall, Hemphill, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, and Randall Counties for Public Assistance. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) 

Lacy E. Suiter, 

*Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.*

[FR Doc. 01-4600 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4044]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

ACTION: Meeting date change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Chemical Warfare 
Defense closed meeting scheduled for February 27, 2001, has been 
changed to February 26, 2001. The meeting will be held at SAIC, 4001 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.

    Dated: February 12, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-4044 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M