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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2272 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2272

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the amount 
that a multicandidate political committee may contribute to a House of 
                       Representatives candidate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1993

 Mr. Gutierrez (for himself, Mr. Baesler, and Mr. Deal) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the amount 
that a multicandidate political committee may contribute to a House of 
                       Representatives candidate.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL COMMITTEE 
              CONTRIBUTIONS TO A HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE.

    Section 315(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
(2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting after ``$5,000'' the 
following: ``, except that, in the case of a candidate for the office 
of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the 
Congress, the limitation shall be $1,000''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Crossmann Communities, Inc.
Exhibit 27.1
Article 5 Financial Data Schedule for 1998 10-K
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                        18011456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  214197844
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         7297691
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3333322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               283793815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      101222955
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      65154710
<OTHER-SE>                                    85125978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 283793815
<SALES>                                      421925742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             421925742
<CGS>                                        332119887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                332119887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1319920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               49606014
<INCOME-TAX>                                  19734278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           29871736
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  29871736
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.57
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

H.R.N., ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-5659 

 ) 

S.D.L. and DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed May 26, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Catherine L. Combee, Judge. 

Robin H. Stevenson, Bartow, for 

Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and 

Carrie R. McNair, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellees. 

CASANUEVA, Judge. 

 H.R.N., the father, appeals an order modifying the amount of child support 

he is required to pay for his two children with S.D.L., the mother. H.R.N. and S.D.L.'s 

first child, B.R.N., was born in 2011, and an order was entered that same year 

establishing paternity and setting his monthly child support payments. Their second 

child, A.E.N., was born in 2014, and an order establishing paternity for A.E.N. was 
- 2 -

entered. This order also modified H.R.N.'s monthly child support obligation to include 

support for both children. We find no merit in H.R.N.'s argument that the trial court 

erred in calculating his monthly child support obligation. 

 However, the Department of Revenue correctly concedes that the trial 

court erred in determining the amount of retroactive child support due. The trial court 

began calculating retroactive child support beginning on January 13, 2014, the younger 

child's date of birth. In doing so, it used a monthly support amount of $776, which 

includes $170 per week in child care expenses. At the hearing, which occurred on 

October 28, 2015, S.D.L. testified that she had been paying $170 a week in child care 

expenses for three months. Therefore, the trial court should have included the $170 

weekly child care expense starting at the end of July 2015. Accordingly, it was error to 

require H.R.N. to pay $170 per week for child care expenses from January 13, 2014, to 

July 2015. We therefore reverse and remand this case for the trial court to recalculate 

the amount of retroactive child support due. 

 Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. 

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
Strategic Diagnostics Inc.:

        We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-68484 and 333-118297) on Form S-8 of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. of our
report dated April 02, 2007, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Strategic Diagnostics Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2006, which report appears in the December 31, 2006
annual report on Form 10-K of Strategic Diagnostics Inc.

Our report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123 (revised), "Share-Based Payment" effective January 1, 2006.

Philadelphia, Pennslyvania
April 02, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,275,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  388,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,664,141
<PP&E>                                       6,824,151
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,816,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,001,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          318,520
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,683,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,001,769
<SALES>                                        416,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               530,040
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               460,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             69,063
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.76
        

</TABLE>
‘i n;; h ::

*

. . z .. -. GG6 : ^ .’ :

.. I .“...

. OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS AUSTIN 

### -cwuw -ouRa Eanorab1.e

Lbrvln Xi.Drown, Jr. crizlinol

Dlstrlot Attorney Fort \Yorth,

Texas . Deer Sir8



### 328(3.)provides a in suite for dolin

### 107now in ?oroo Pa3uad lLlciva1 oa303, 

### or tho opinion thst the no supcraoded tho fom to bo uooa 

### in olloction of dolinq.lmt taxco, ltatlon. ie apeoirically sot forth ’ (1) Soot.ion j, assi:;t

US In this rmtter 

### with an axa0f0110:16I

Upo!xreoolpt of your lottor the writer \szotoyou "It is 

### our u~domtnndin(: 

### thnt tho poinl; you inquire about hao bow cnllod to tho 

### uttontion of the SKp~Wo Court 

### and that the court is no?tprey5ng ar. axiGcd rule to taka cm0 of this acming. ., .

, Honorable LWvls I?.l&own,iJr., -pa&o2 lnoonslat3noyr Slth 

### your pemkmibn, thOref@o, WC will mit the aotion by tim court which tra+uide~G stand will bs in the mar future boforo answifcpfq~ yam. roquostIn Fe novroOl?~yf5ursttcatim to Ruls ::o,2 

### a0 azwnd0d by thb Suprme Court; tJsesmo provldo3 a3 folloxo:

nThoae &lo3 ohsU &kern tho procoduro in the justioa, county, distritit ncd~ nppa+to court3 of tho rtato of Texas in all aotiom of a civil '. nature, with 3uch Oroaptions 33 my bo horoimftor **Bt3hi .** **.** :,:horo

any ntatut3 In offoct,lxzodistaly

. prior to %pttmbcr 1, l.$!,J., proscribed .arulo 

### or procoduro tn'lumcy, @mrdianOhip, OY 03tatos of docadontc, or any other probato Jroo3odingn 

### In ~. tho oounty court diff3~5.r;~ fro3 the30 rulon, such statuts 3hOll ag;:ly. :~iiatatuton in 

### tmmi iamediately prior to SaytcmbOr l.,1$&l, p"o3cribi.r~ **~ulos** ail

prGcodw% in bond oi' reco~~izsnoe ~o~~oILu~Qs ;Cncririlualcasas era hsreby Ooztlnuod In affect 03 rules of yrocodura covorninL; such oa303, but whore

Jroscribod na rules of Jzoseduro In auuh crtatuteo

**530t103 5,**  **of** Artlolg 

### 732%3.amtiiino.a **form** of 

### altotlon to bo used in t3;%mite. :

ft 13 the o>fnion of this dopnrtzmt **that** Artiolo 73~8-1’ ~3 **still in**  

### force and effect UII~aold attltuto hm not been ropsslodoz Ononded by the 

### no? rulOo of praotioo end proQoduro in oivil notio:i3 pronulcated by tho :uypocleCourt of this zt3to. Yours very truly
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41677

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS FRANCISCO MORALES-AGUSTINE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-921-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Francisco Morales-Agustine (Morales) appeals the 80-

month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of

illegal reentry into the United States after being deported. 

Morales contends that his sentence is illegal under United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because it was imposed

pursuant to a mandatory application of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines. He thus alleges a “Fanfan” error. See

United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Fanfan error is not a structural error. Id. However, the
No. 04-41677

-2-

Government concedes that the Fanfan error was preserved, so we

review for harmless error. See id. at 464. The Government has

failed to carry its burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt

that the district court’s Fanfan error had no effect Morales’s

sentence. See id. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand

for resentencing in accordance with Booker. See id.

Morales contends that the sentence-increasing provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional and that this court

should remand his case for resentencing to no more than two years

in prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As he concedes, this

contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR

RESENTENCING.
Exhibit 23.1










                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, No. 33-92724, No. 333-29907 and No. 333-82057) pertaining to the
Louis Dreyfus Natural Gas Corp. Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 333-77185) pertaining to the Non-Employee Director Deferred
Compensation Program of Louis Dreyfus Natural Gas Corp. and the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-21321) and related Prospectuses of our report dated
February 7, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Louis Dreyfus Natural Gas Corp. included in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 6, 2000
#### JO-ANN JACKSON *v.*PASCALE P. LEE

*Matthew B. Woods,*in support of the petition.

*Stephen J. Conover*and *Susan R. Briggs,*in opposition.

Decided July 14, 2010

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 121 Conn. App. 375 (AC 31182), is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11236-11237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4425]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; CC Docket No. 96-98; FCC 00-429]


Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)

[[Page 11237]]

amended its rules in order to ensure that the numbering resources of 
the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) are used efficiently, and that 
all carriers have the numbering resources they need to compete in the 
rapidly expanding telecommunications marketplace.

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 52.15, which contain information 
collection requirements, are published at 66 FR 9528 (Feb. 8, 2001) and 
became effective on January 25, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanford Williams, (202) 418-2320 or 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#601317090c0c09010d200603034e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="314246585d5d58505c715752521f565e47">[email protected]</span></a> or Cheryl Callahan at (202) 418-2320 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef8c8c8e83838e878eaf898c8cc1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99fafaf8f5f5f8f1f8d9fffafab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 7, 2001, the Commission adopted 
a report and order to implement strategies designed to improve the 
efficient use of numbering resources in the NANP, a summary of which 
was published in the Federal Register. See 66 FR 9528. Sections 
52.15(g)(4) and 52.15(k)(1) contain new information collection 
requirements. We stated that those sections ``contain information 
collections that have not been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). The Federal Communications Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those 
sections.'' The information collections were approved by OMB on January 
25, 2001. See OMB No. 3060-0971. This publication satisfies our 
statement that the Commission publish a document announcing the 
effective date of the rules.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4425 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0173

_________________

KELLI JONES, f/k/a KELLI PARKER,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 v.

KEVIN PARKER and STACY SNAVELEY,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Robert G. Olson, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 30 2022

11/30/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0173
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 24, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1528

Lower Tribunal Nos. F03-11507, F03-11499

________________

Kahlil Clayton,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.

Thomas Neusom (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Ryland v. State, No. 3D22-1983, 2023 WL 2903411 (Fla. 

3d DCA Apr. 12, 2023).
#### Francis C. MBEWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN NAMES, (MCDCR) MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION MAIL ROOM CLERKS; David, Cpt., Head of Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (MCDCR) Mail Room; Richard Dovey, C.O.S., Chief of Security of MCI-H; Richard, C.O. II, former Property Room Officer of MCI-H; WACH, Mr., Case Manager; Stevenus, Ms., Librarian, MCI-H; MCI-H; MCDCR Mail Room, Defendants-Appellees, and Stouffer, C.D.C, Head of Correction for the State of Maryland; Sowers, Warden (former) m MCI-H; Webb, Warden, MCI-H; Scott, MJ, Shift Commander, MCI-H; Clevenger, C.O. II, Tier Officer for B2; Williams, Lt., Unit Manager of Northside MCI-H; Powell, Lt., former Unit Manager of Northside MCI-H; Vinson, C.O. II, Dietary Officer of MCI-H; Worgul, C.O. II, Dietary Officer of MCI-H; HULL, Cpt., Dietary Manager of MCI-H, Defendants.

*213No. 14-6059.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 22, 2014.

Francis C. Mbewe, Appellant Pro Se. Silvia Carolina Kineh, Office of the County Attorney, Rockville, Maryland; Siobhan Kelly Madison, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Francis C. Mbewe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against the Appel-lees for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mbewe v. Unknown Names,*No. 8:12-cv-03344-AW, 2013 WL 6255382 (D.Md. Dec. 3, 2013). 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.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION IN THE FORM PROVIDED BY

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Brookstone, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that:



| | 1) | the Companys Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2006 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Louis ManciniLouis ManciniPresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Director


Dated: August 15, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6342

SAVINO BRAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERRY ROBINSON BAILEY, Assistant State’sAttorney, in her individual and official capacity; VERNON S. SKUHR, Maryland Division of Parole Warrant Officer, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-188-JFM) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Savino Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Braxton v. Bailey , No. CA98-188-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DiaSys Corporation - Exhibit 10.21A-A




EXHIBIT 10.21A-A 



Diagnostic Bioserve 




SCHEDULE A

  

  
  	Products 	 	 



  


 






	Consumables 	 Parasep Tubes: 	 $________/ea 


 







ELISA Tests 











Electrophoresis
2009-1865.

#### In re S.S.

Licking App. No. 2009CA0040, 2009-Ohio-4520.