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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2458 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2458

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 
 States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

  Mr. Shadegg (for himself, Mr. Otter, Mr. Herger, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
  Texas, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Souder, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. 
 Garrett of New Jersey, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Bartlett of 
Maryland, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Paul, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Doolittle, 
 Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Cox, Mr. Miller of 
 Florida, Mrs. Musgrave, and Mr. Goode) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 
 States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enumerated Powers Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF LAW.

    (a) Constitutional Authority for This Act.--This Act is enacted 
pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 8, 
clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted to 
each House of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the 
United States Constitution.
    (b) Constitutional Authority Statement Required.--Chapter 2 of 
title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 102 
the following new section:
``Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause
    ``Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite 
statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment 
of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section 
shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The 
availability of this point of order does not affect any other available 
relief.''
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 102 the following new item:

``102a. Constitutional authority clause.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         37,674
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  43,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    7,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               96,053
<PP&E>                                         1,008,288
<DEPRECIATION>                                 34,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,214,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          462,436
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       352
<OTHER-SE>                                     419,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,214,627
<SALES>                                        157,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,797
<CGS>                                          85,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  85,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               61,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,060)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,060)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.31)
        



</TABLE>
### §285g–2. Research on intellectual disabilities

The Director of the Institute shall conduct and support research and related activities into the causes, prevention, and treatment of intellectual disabilities.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §450, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 856; amended Pub. L. 111–256, §2(f)(3), Oct. 5, 2010, 124 Stat. 2644.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–256 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Director of the Institute shall conduct and support research and related activities into the causes, prevention, and treatment of mental retardation."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For meaning of references to an intellectual disability and to individuals with intellectual disabilities in provisions amended by section 2 of Pub. L. 111–256, see section 2(k) of Pub. L. 111–256, set out as a note under section 1400 of Title 20, Education.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Albanese, Appellant.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing and for assignment of counsel denied. An examination of the papers submitted on this motion discloses that as a matter of law the remedy of *eoram nobis*is not available to the appellant on the ground urged by him *(People*v. *Brown,*7 N Y 2d 359; *People*v. *Tomaselli,*7 N Y 2d 350; *People*v. *Battice,*6 A D 2d 733, affd. 5 N Y 2d 946). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
### §3797ff. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797ff was editorially reclassified as section 10701 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 513.200 Debarment or suspension. ( a ) *Primary covered transactions.* Except to the extent prohibited by law, persons who are debarred or suspended shall be excluded from primary covered transactions as either participants or principals throughout the Executive Branch of the Federal Government for the period of their debarment, suspension, or the period they are proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4. Accordingly, no agency shall enter into primary covered transactions with such excluded persons during such period, except as permitted pursuant to § 513.215.
( b ) *Lower tier covered transactions.* Except to the extent prohibited by law, persons who have been proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred or suspended shall be excluded from participating as either participants or principals in all lower tier covered transactions (see § 513.110(a)(1)(ii)) for the period of their exclusion.
( c ) *Exceptions.* Debarment or suspension does not affect a person's eligibility for— ( 1 ) Statutory entitlements or mandatory awards (but not subtier awards thereunder which are not themselves mandatory), including deposited funds insured by the Federal Government;
( 2 ) Direct awards to foreign governments or public international organizations, or transactions with foreign governments or foreign governmental entities, public international organizations, foreign government owned (in whole or in part) or controlled entities, and entities consisting wholly or partially of foreign governments or foreign governmental entities;
( 3 ) Benefits to an individual as a personal entitlement without regard to the individual's present responsibility (but benefits received in an individual's business capacity are not excepted);
( 4 ) Federal employment;
( 5 ) Transactions pursuant to national or agency-recognized emergencies or disasters;
( 6 ) Incidental benefits derived from ordinary governmental operations; and
( 7 ) Other transactions where the application of these regulations would be prohibited by law.
[60 FR 33041, 33045, June 26, 1995]
3431.205-71 Noncontractor travel.       The contracting officer may insert the clause at 3452.231–71 (Invitational travel costs) in solicitations and contracts when travel by other than Federal or contractor personnel will be required in performance of the contract.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3431.2—Contracts With Commercial Organizations
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6726

In Re: ANDRE KEBE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:97-cr-00357) Submitted: July 17, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Kebe, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Andre Kebe petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly de layed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks release from imprisonment based on the delay. After Kebe filed the instant mandamus petition, the district court ruled on his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

PETITION DENIED
### §6374c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §400DD, as added Pub. L. 100–494, §4(a), Oct. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 2445; amended Pub. L. 102–486, title IV, §402(2), (3), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2876, provided for establishment of the Interagency Commission on Alternative Motor Fuels and the United States Alternative Fuels Council, required the Commission to submit interim reports and a final report by Sept. 30, 1992, to Congress, and terminated the Commission and Council upon submission of the final report.
### §3731. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3731 was editorially reclassified as section 10131 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William A. Williams, Appellant.

Motion granted to appeal on original papers, typewritten briefs, and Joseph iC. Tisdall, Esq. of Buffalo assigned as attorney to conduct appeal and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include September 1960 Term of court.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:57:59-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, RELATOR ORIGINAL 

SOURCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION AND ARM, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1608

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in Nos. 3:14-cv-01279-

WHA and 3:14-cv-03729-WHA, Judge William H. Alsup.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK AND MOORE, Circuit 

Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Intel Corporation moves to dismiss this appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. Michael A. Bruzzone moves for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case: 14-1608 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2014
2 BRUZZONE v. INTEL CORPORATION

Bruzzone appeals from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California’s dismissal of 

his action for failure to file an amended complaint. In his 

original complaint, Bruzzone filed a qui tam action

against Intel Corporation as a relator under the False 

Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733. This court is a court 

of limited jurisdiction, which does not include jurisdiction 

in this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1295.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this court is authorized 

to transfer the case to a court in which the appeal could 

have been brought. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to dismiss is denied.

(2) The appeal and all pending motions are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s26

Case: 14-1608 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2014
702206968v1 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LOGITECH, 

INC.’S APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

Case No. 08-cv-02041 MMC (JCS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

PHILIP S. WARDEN (State Bar No. 54752) 

philip.warden@pillsburylaw.com 

50 Fremont Street 

Post Office Box 7880 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 

Telephone: (415) 983-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 

Attorneys for Defendant 

LOGITECH, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARTHUR FULFORD, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

LOGITECH, INC., a California corporation, 

and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 08-cv-02041 MMC (JCS) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

LOGITECH, INC.’S APPLICATION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Dept.: 7 

Judge: Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

The Court having considered Defendant LOGITECH, INC.’s (“Logitech”) Application 

for Attorneys’ Fees, the supporting Declaration of Philip S. Warden, and papers on file in this 

case, and good cause showing, 

It is hereby ORDERED that: 

Michael A. Fitzgerald pay Logitech its reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$5,000.00 incurred in bringing its application for order to show cause, appearing at the April 30, 

2010 hearing before this Court, and responding to the action that Mr. Fitzgerald filed in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Dated: __________, 2010. 

The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

United States Magistrate Judge 

and no opposition having been filed by Michael A. Fitzgerald,

^

June 15

Case 3:08-cv-02041-MMC Document 156 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 1
Phanto m 2 Vision + Preflight Checklist

Date:___________

_

________ Location:_________

________ Time of arrival:____________

Weather

Visibility:_________________

Wi nd Speed:______________

Wind Direction:____________

Air Temperature:___________

Precipitation:______________

Arrival Checklist

1. If day and operating out of back of vehicle, point vehicle into sun.

2. Remove case and place on level surface.

3. Check distance to nearest airport and/or controlled airspace using smartphone or tablet app.

4. Identify flight hazards.

5. Identify flight risks

.

Preflight Checklist

1. Visually inspect props for dama ge or warping. Replace after 50 hours of flight time

2. Visually inspect hull for cracks, moisture, debris, or other abnormities

3. Remove transmitte r.

4. Router

- On

5. Transmitter

- On

6. Toggle Switches

- Full Up

7. Throttle

– Locked to 0%

8. Transmitter battery charge levels

– Verified.

9. Video Monitor

- On

10. Remove UAS from case.

11. Gimbal Lock & Lens Cap

- Removed

12. Micro

- SD card

- Inserted.

13. UAS Battery

- Inserted

14. Place UAS in clear and safe launch and recovery position if it returns to home.

15. UAS Battery

- On

16. Wifi Connection to Monitor

- Verified

17. DJI Application

- Load

18. DJI application

- Connect to Camera

19. SD Card

- Format

20. Camera

- Full Up21. Compass recalibration

22. Satellite Connections

- Verified

23. Charge Lev els

- Safe for Flight

24. Video Recording

– Start

25. Prop eller Motors

- S tart

26. Verify Propeller and motor function

27. Takeoff

After Takeoff Checklist

1. Hover approximately ten feet above the ground t o confirm UAS is under control.

2. Verify al l sticks operate correctly while in hover

3. Verify GPS, Altitude

, and all other telemetry from UAS is within threshold

Pre

- Landing Checklist

1. Camer a

- Full Up

2. Video Recorder

- Stop

3. Landing Zone

- Clear / Safe

Post

- Landing Checklist

- Returning to Flight Immediately

1. Battery

- Remove & Replace

2. Wifi Connection to Monitor

- Verified

3. DJI ap plication

- Connect to Camera

4. Preform Preflight checklist steps 14

- 27

End of Ops Checklist

1. UAS Battery

- Off

2. Transmitter

- Off

3. Router

- Off
#### In the Matter of Saronda T. Culton, Respondent, v Archie C. Culton, Jr., Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 266]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, objections granted, order of Hearing Examiner vacated and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of Family Court denying his objections to the order of a Hearing Examiner that granted the petition for an upward modification *936of child support. We agree with respondent that the Hearing Examiner erred in concluding that the standard set forth in *Matter of Boden v Boden*(42 NY2d 210) did not apply to the petition for modification. Because petitioner failed to sustain her evidentiary burden under *Boden*or *Matter of Brescia v Fitts*(56 NY2d 132), we reverse the Family Court order, grant the objections, vacate the order of the Hearing Examiner and dismiss the petition.

A party who seeks a modification of the amount of child support incorporated into a judgment of divorce by stipulation of the parties must establish “an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances” *(Matter of Boden v Boden, supra,*at 213) or that the basic needs of the child are not being met *(Matter of Brescia v Fitts, supra,*at 140-141). The *Boden*standard applies where, as here, the parties stipulate that a prior Family Court order of support be incorporated into a judgment of divorce *(see, Matter of Weise v Weise,*255 AD2d 929). An increase in the income of respondent and the cost of providing for maturing children is not an unanticipated and unreasonable circumstance *(see, Kinsella v Kinsella,*206 AD2d 889, 890). A custodial parent nevertheless is entitled to a modification if it is established that the basic needs of the child cannot be met under the current level of support *(see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, supra,*at 140-141). However, “[t]he conclusory assertions * * * of increased costs related to basic necessities of food and clothing for the child [ren] resulting from [their] maturing, without documentary or other supporting proof, are insufficient to establish that the child [ren] ’s needs are not being met” *(Kinsella v Kinsella, supra,*at 890; *see also, Tuchrello v Tuchrello,*204 AD2d 1020, 1021; *Matter of Hulik v Hulik,*201 AD2d 909, 910).

The contention of respondent that the court erred in finding him to be in violation of an order of support is not properly before us. This appeal is from Family Court’s order denying respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order of support, and the order on appeal does not contain any finding pertaining to the violation of an order of support. Because we conclude that the petition ^must be dismissed, we do not reach respondent’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Rosa, J. — Support.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.
### §5672. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5672 was editorially reclassified as section 11182 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### BIDDLE PURCHASING CO., Respondent, v. SNYDER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 24, 1905.)

Action by the Biddle Purchasing Company against Valentine P. Snyder. R. Foster, for appellant. R. S. Rounds, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
### §5513. Priorities and criteria of demonstration programs

The Secretary shall set priorities as far as possible consistent with the intent and operation of this subchapter in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) The residential dwellings and other buildings which will be part of the demonstration programs referred to in sections 5503, 5504, and 5507 of this title shall be located in a sufficient number of different geographic areas in the United States to assure a realistic and effective demonstration of the solar heating systems and combined solar heating and cooling systems involved, and of the dwellings and other buildings themselves, in both rural and urban locations and under climatic conditions which vary as much as possible.

(b) Consideration shall be given to projected costs of commercial production and maintenance of the solar heating systems and combined solar heating and cooling systems utilized in the demonstration programs.

(c) Encouragement should be given in the conduct of programs under this subchapter to those projects in which funds, appropriated by any State or political subdivision thereof for the purpose of sharing costs with the Federal Government for the purchase and installation of solar heating or combined solar heating and cooling components and systems, are committed before or after September 3, 1974.

(Pub. L. 93–409, §15, Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1077.)
### §3618. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, §819, formerly §818, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 89; renumbered §819, Pub. L. 100–430, §8(1), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1625.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 819 of Pub. L. 90–284 was renumbered section 820 and is classified to section 3619 of this title.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4412 

To extend temporarily the reduction of duty on certain dyed acrylic staple 

fibers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the reduction of duty on certain dyed 

acrylic staple fibers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN DYED ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.23 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain dyed acrylic staple fibers) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4412 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS