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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2779 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2779

 To amend chapter 42 of title 38, United States Code, with respect to 
                  the definition of disabled veteran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1993

 Mr. Montgomery (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 42 of title 38, United States Code, with respect to 
                  the definition of disabled veteran.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION.

    Paragraph (3) of section 4211 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
            ``(3) The term `disabled veteran' means any veteran who has 
        a compensable service-connected disability under laws 
        administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs or whose 
        discharge or release from active duty was for a disability 
        incurred or aggravated in the line of duty.''.

                                 <all>
```
# FY17_Q1

# FY17_Q2

# FY17_Q3

# FY17_Q4

# PFGE - User Notes
Motion Denied and Order filed December 23, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 85

- 00876

- CR

____________ DIMITRIUS JOHNSON, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416,096



### ORDER
Appellant ’ s conviction was affirmed by this court in 1987. Appellant has
filed a motion to obtain documents and trial records, without payment, to pursue habeas corpus relief

. Generally, an indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to a free record of prior proceedings for use in pursuing post

- conviction habeas corpus relief. See Escobar v. State, 880 S.W.2d 782, 783 (Tex. App.

-- Houston [1st Dist.] 1993,order). This motion is not the correct vehicle for relief. See In re Williams , 2001

WL 668455, *2 (Tex. App.

-- Beaumont 2001, orig. proceeding). We deny the
motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby and Brown.
EXHIBIT
32.2




Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pressure BioSciences, Inc.,
a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Richard T. Schumacher, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code) that:





(1)
  The Report of the Company 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.




Dated:
      November 16, 2009
              By:
              /s/Richard T.
      SchumacherRichard
      T. Schumacher
                President
      & Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pressure BioSciences, Inc. and will be retained by Pressure BioSciences, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 23.2


                          Independent Auditors' Report
                          ----------------------------

The Board of Directors
North Bancshares, Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of financial condition
of North Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary (the Company) as of December 31, 2000
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year then ended. These consolidated financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial
statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of North Bancshares,
Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000, and the results of their operations
and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


                                                               /s/ KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
February 23, 2001
Exhibit 31.1Cronos Global Income Fund XVRule 13a-14 Certifications     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cronos Global Income Fund XV (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, 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 Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Partnership’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 24, 2006/s/ DENNIS J TIETZ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joaquin RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-14165

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 10, 2014.

Michelle Thresher Taylor, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Matthew Jackson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Howard C. Anderson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Joaquin Ramirez, Coleman, FL, pro se.

*768Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rosemary Cakmis, appointed counsel for Joaquin Ramirez in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ramirez’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


To the Board of Directors
and Stockholders of
Mace Security International, Inc.


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet (before restatement)
of Mace Security International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
cash flows (before restatement) for the year then ended. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Mace Security
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the results of
their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

                                    /s/URBACH KAHN & WERLIN PC

Albany, New York
April 2, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4961]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 00N-1435]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval; Substantial Evidence of Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Substantial Evidence of 
Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs'' has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Office of Information 
Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 16, 2000 
(65 FR 49989), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0356. 
The approval expires on February 29, 2004. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: February 22, 2001.
William K. Hubbard,
Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation.
[FR Doc. 01-4961 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32

    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 GBC Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry
D. Key, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, John Hopkins, Chief
Financial 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.


                                    /s/ Larry D. Key
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Larry D. Key, President and C.E.O.
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)


                                    /s/ John Hopkins
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    John Hopkins, C.F.O.
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

November 9, 2005


                                       23
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2746

To amend the White House Conference on Small Business Authorization

Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 1993

Mr. LAFALCE (for himself and Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas) introduced the

following bill which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

A BILL

To amend the White House Conference on Small Business

Authorization Act.

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

3 That the White House Conference on Small Business Au4 thorization Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended—

5 (1) in section 2 by striking from subsection (a)

6 ‘‘not earlier than January 1, 1994, and not later

7 than April 1, 1994’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof

8 ‘‘not earlier than May 1, 1995, and not later than

9 December 31, 1995’’;
2

HR 2746 IH

1 (2) in section 2 by striking from subsection (a)

2 ‘‘December 1, 1992’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof

3 ‘‘March 1, 1994’’;

4 (3) in section 5 by striking the second sentence

5 of subsection (a) and by inserting in lieu thereof the

6 following: ‘‘Subsequent to the date of enactment of

7 this Act, but not later than 30 days after the date

8 of enactment of this Act, the President shall select

9 and appoint eleven individuals to the Commission.’’;

10 and

11 (4) in section 9 by striking from subsection (a)

12 ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof

13 ‘‘$7,000,000’’.

Æ
|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |  |
| Company Name              | State or Country in which Incorporated or Organized |
|                      |   |
| Riley Natural Gas Company | West Virginia |
| Unioil                    | Nevada |
| PDC Mountaineer, LLC      | Delaware |
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4999]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE


Redelegation of Authorities by the Secretary of State, From the 
Under Secretary of State for Management to the Assistant Secretary of 
State for Diplomatic Security; Delegation of Authority 241

    By virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the United 
States, including the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the Diplomatic 
Security Act of 1986, the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the Immigration 
and Nationality Act of 1952, and the State Department Basic Authorities 
Act of 1956, I hereby delegate to David G. Carpenter, the Assistant 
Secretary for Diplomatic Security, to the extent authorized by law, all 
authorities vested in the Under Secretary of State for Management, 
including all authorities vested in the Secretary of State that have 
been or may be delegated or redelegated to that Under Secretary.
    Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by 
the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, or the 
Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs.
    This delegation shall expire upon the appointment of an individual 
to serve as Under Secretary of State for Management.
    This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 22, 2001.
Colin L. Powell,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 01-4999 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-U
#### Huicong LIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-72812.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Thomas Ogden, Counsel, Law Offices of Thomas Ogden, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.

Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, OIL Timothy Bo Stanton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, 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). Thus, we deny Liang's request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM **

Huicong Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistency between Liang’s Mexican work visa, which was renewed in 2006, and his testimony that he fears Chinese officials in Mexico and has not returned to Mexico since 2003. *See id.*at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). The agency was not compelled to accept Liang’s explanation for *495this inconsistency. *See Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011). In the absence of credible testimony, Liang’s withholding of removal claim fails. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PetroleumDevelopment Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), the undersigned certify pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| /s/ Steven R. Williams                 |  | Date:   January 6, 2006 |
|----------------------------------------|--|------------------------------|
| Steven R. Williams, Chairman,          |  |
| and Chief Executive Officer            |  |
|                                        |  |
|                                        |  |
| /s/ Darwin L. Stump                    |  | Date:   January 6, 2006 |
| Darwin L. Stump                        |  |
| Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |  |

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to Petroleum Development Corporationand will be retained by Petroleum Development Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-4 No. 333-211405) and related joint information statement/prospectus ofEnersis Américas S.A. of our reports dated April 29, 2016, with respect both to the consolidated financial statements of Enersis Américas S.A. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2015 and to the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Enersis Américas S.A. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2015. 

/s/ EY Ltda. 

EY Ltda. 

Santiago, Chile 

September 6, 2016
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-04712, No. 333-03728, No. 33-89322, No. 33-72956, No. 333-02903, No.
333-71147 and No. 333-38882 of West Marine, Inc., all on Form S-8, of our report
dated March 4, 2002 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of West Marine,
Inc. for the year ended December 29, 2001.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Francisco, California
March 29, 2002