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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2478 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting 

deceptive advertising of abortion services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, 

Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. HOLT, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. BERMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules 

prohibiting deceptive advertising of abortion services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Deceptive Adver5 tising for Women’s Services Act’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2478 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING OF 

2 ABORTION SERVICES. 

3 (a) CONDUCT PROHIBITED.—Not later than 180 

4 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal 

5 Trade Commission shall promulgate rules to prohibit, as 

6 an unfair and deceptive act or practice, any person from 

7 advertising with the intent to deceptively create the im8 pression that such person is a provider of abortion services 

9 if such person does not provide abortion services. 

10 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—The Federal Trade Commis11 sion shall enforce the rules required under subsection (a) 

12 as if a violation of such rules were a violation of section 

13 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 

14 45(a)(1). The Commission shall enforce such rules in the 

15 same manner and by the same means, powers, and duties 

16 as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Fed17 eral Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and 

18 made a part of this Act. 

19 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

20 For purposes of the rules prescribed under section 

21 2, the following definitions apply: 

22 (1) ADVERTISE.—The term ‘‘advertise’’ means 

23 offering of goods or services to the public, regardless 

24 of whether such goods or services are offered for 

25 payment or result in a profit. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 2478 IH

1 (2) ABORTION SERVICES.—The term ‘‘abortion 

2 services’’ means providing surgical and non-surgical 

3 procedures to terminate a pregnancy, or providing 

4 referrals for such procedures. 

5 (3) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ has the 

6 meaning given such term in section 551(2) of title 

7 5, United States Code. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                                                                    ------------


                        Subsidiaries of Hadco Corporation


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Direct Subsidiaries (100%) owned by Hadco Corporation)                   State or Country/
------------------------------------------------------                   -----------------
                                                                     Territory of Organization
                                                                     -------------------------

<S>                                                                  <C>
Hadco Santa Clara, Inc. (f/k/a Zycon Corporation)                            Delaware
Hadco Phoenix, Inc. (f/k/a Continental Circuits Corp.)                       Delaware
Zycon Corporation                                                            Delaware
Continental Circuits Corp.                                                   Delaware
Hadco Foreign Sales Corporation                                         U.S. Virgin Islands
Hadco Scotland Limited                                                       Scotland


Indirect Subsidiaries                                                    State or Country/
---------------------                                                    -----------------
                                                                     Territory of Organization
                                                                     -------------------------

CCIR of California Corp. (100% owned by Hadco Phoenix, Inc.)                California
CCIR of Texas Corp. (100% owned by Hadco                                       Texas
     Phoenix, Inc.)
Hadco Corporation (Malaysia) SDN.BHD. (f/k/a Zycon                           Malaysia
     Corporation, SDN.BHD) (100% owned by Hadco Santa
     Clara, Inc.
Continental Circuits International, Inc. (100% owned by                      Barbados
     Hadco Phoenix, Inc.
</TABLE>
June 11, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NOS. 14-12-00210-CR, 14-12-00211-CR, 14-12-00212-CR, 14-12-00213-CR, 

14-12-00214-CR, 14-12-00215-CR, 14-12-00216-CR, 14-12-00217-CR, 14-12-

00218-CR, 14-12-00219-CR, 14-12-00220-CR, 14-12-00221-CR, 14-12-00222-

CR, 14-12-00223-CR, 14-12-00224-CR, 14-12-00225-CR, 14-12-00226-CR, 14-

12-00227-CR, 14-12-00228-CR, 14-12-00229-CR, 14-12-00230-CR, 14-12-

00231-CR, 14-12-00232-CR, 14-12-00233-CR, 14-12-00234-CR, 14-12-00235-

CR, 14-12-00236-CR, 14-12-00237-CR, 14-12-00238-CR

AL D. CHECO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_____________________________________________________

These causes were heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in judgment. 

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 74 FR 19432, Apr. 29, 2009.

§ 51.160 Specialized rehabilitative services. ( a ) *Provision of services.* If specialized rehabilitative services such as but not limited to physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and mental health services for mental illness are required in the resident's comprehensive plan of care, facility management must— ( 1 ) Provide the required services; or
( 2 ) Obtain the required services from an outside resource, in accordance with § 51.210(h) of this part, from a provider of specialized rehabilitative services.
( b ) Specialized rehabilitative services must be provided under the written order of a physician by qualified personnel.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0160) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741-1743)
[65 FR 968, Jan. 6, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 19434, Apr. 29, 2009]
----

(2004/C 78 E/0928)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3916/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Unsatisfactory standards in Italy for checking that medical staff have the necessary professional qualifications

Knowing that:

Does the Commission intend to take this matter up with the Italian authorities and investigate whether existing legislation in Italy meets the necessary standards when it comes to checks designed to ensure that patients are treated by medical staff with the necessary professional qualifications?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

First of all it is appropriate to stress that the question by the Honourable Members deals with a situation that presents no cross-border elements and is purely internal to Italy.

Secondly, while according to Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (1), the exercise of the medical profession is reserved to holders of one of the qualifications listed in the relevant annexes or the publication in accordance with Article 41, it is in principle the responsibility of the competent institutions of the Member States to see that this principle is respected.

Third, the situation to which the Honourable Members refer concerns the exercising of the profession of a specialist doctor by a person who, according to their information, does not hold any medical qualification whatsoever and must, hence, be considered as an individual case. The Commission does not dispose of any information which would lead to the conclusion that medical professions in Italy are systematically exercised by persons with no training and no qualifications. If this were the case, the Commission would certainly not hesitate to initiate the steps foreseen in the EC-Treaty, and particularly in Article 226.

----

(1)OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

----
#### Edward Dunn, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, eighth district, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the plaintiff.

Henry A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Buckley, for respondent

O’Gobman, J.

We think the judgment in this case is sufficiently supported by the proofs. The circumstance that plaintiff’s horse and all of his wagon, except the hind wheel, crossed the track before the collision lends probability to his statement that defendant’s car was almost a block away when he attempted to cross the street. If, as claimed by the defendant’s witnesses, plaintiff suddenly turned in, in front of defendant’s approaching car, the horse would undoubtedly have been struck instead of the hind wheel of the wagon. The case presented a conflict respecting the facts, and the inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and with the conclusion of the court below we see no reason for interfering.

Beekman, P. J., and Giegebich, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4279 Extensions and reamortizations. ( a ) Provided the debtor(s) is (are) a reasonable credit risk(s), as determined by the holder based upon review of the debtor's (s') creditworthiness, including a review of a current credit report(s) on the debtor(s), the terms of repayment of any loan may, by written agreement between the holder and debtor(s), be extended in the event of default, to avoid imminent default, or in any other case where the prior approval of the Secretary is obtained. Except with the prior approval of the Secretary, no such extension shall set a rate of amortization less than that sufficient to fully amortize at least 80 percent of the loan balance so extended within the maximum maturity prescribed for loans of its class.
( b ) In the event of a partial prepayment pursuant to § 36.4211, the balance of the indebtedness may, by written agreement between the holder and the debtor(s), be reamortized, provided the reamortization schedule will result in full repayment of the loan within the original maturity, and provided the debtor(s) is (are) a reasonable credit risk(s), as determined by the holder based upon review of the debtor's (s') creditworthiness, including a review of a current credit report(s) on the debtor(s).
( c ) Unless the prior approval of the Secretary has been obtained, any extension or reamortization agreed to by a holder which relieves any obligor from liability will release the liability of the Secretary under the guaranty on the entire loan. However, if such release of liability of an obligor results through operation of law by reason of an extension or other act of forbearance, the liability of the Secretary as guarantor will not be affected thereby, *Provided,* The required lien is maintained and the title holder is and will remain liable for the payment of the indebtedness: *And further provided,* That if such extension or act of forbearance will result in the release of the veteran, all delinquent installments, plus any foreclosure expenses which may have been incurred, shall have been fully paid.
( d ) The holder shall promptly forward to the Secretary an advice of the terms of any agreement effecting a reamortization or extension of a guaranteed loan, together with cop(y)(ies) of the credit report(s) obtained on the debtor(s).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3712)
[36 FR 1253, Jan. 27, 1971, as amended at 53 FR 34295, Sept. 6, 1988]
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00359

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Cou rt No. 048

- 285747

- 16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### E RIC 

### M AHROUM 

### , Appellant

V



### .

T EXAS 

### W ORKFORCE 

### C OMMISSION AND 

### T EXAS 

### H OUSE OF



### R EPRESENTATIVES 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
On February 28, 2020, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as
the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with

the court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the
brief’s untimely filing and why an extensio n was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b),
38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.
Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an
opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecution

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal.

Per Curiam

Delivered : March 26, 2020
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2437 

To provide for the establishment of an energy efficiency and renewable energy 

finance and investment advisory committee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2007 

Mr. ISRAEL (for himself, Mr. MATHESON, and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for the establishment of an energy efficiency 

and renewable energy finance and investment advisory 

committee. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 

4 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Assistant Secretary of 

5 Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shall 

6 establish an advisory committee to provide advice and rec7 ommendations to the Department of Energy on energy ef8 ficiency and renewable energy finance and investment 

9 issues, options, ideas, and trends, and to assist the energy 

10 community in identifying practical ways of lowering costs 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2437 IH

1 and increasing investments in energy efficiency and renew2 able energy technologies. 

3 (b) MEMBERSHIP.—The advisory committee estab4 lished under this section shall consist of members rep5 resenting the following communities: 

6 (1) Providers of seed capital. 

7 (2) Venture capitalists. 

8 (3) Private equity sources. 

9 (4) Investment banking corporate finance. 

10 (5) Investment banking mergers and acquisi11 tions. 

12 (6) Equity capital markets. 

13 (7) Debt capital markets. 

14 (8) Research analysts. 

15 (9) Sales and trading. 

16 (10) Commercial lenders. 

17 (11) Residential lenders. 

18 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

19 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec20 retary of Energy for carrying out this Act $1,000,000 for 

21 each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 4027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTONIO DENARD TORRENCE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr
- 00199

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensbo ro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Denard Torrence appeals his conviction for brandishing a firearm during
and in relation to a crime of violence , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). He contends that his § 924(c) conviction is invalid bec ause the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague and Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A). Although the Supreme Court has invalidated the residual clause, United States v. Davis , 139 S . Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), this Court has held that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause, United
States v. Mathis , 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019). Torrence’s § 924(c) conviction is therefore valid, and we affirm the district co urt’s judgment. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2097

In re: MICHAEL ANTHONY HICKSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 (8:09-cr-00213-RWT-2; 8:13-cv-02790-RWT)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Hickson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Hickson petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, seeking this court’s review of his motion under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) or, alternatively, an order recusing the 

district court judge. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and 

should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. 

U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Further, mandamus 

relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right 

to the relief sought. United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

517 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute 

for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th 

Cir. 2007).

We conclude that the relief sought by Hickson is not 

available by way of mandamus. Moreover, to the extent that he 

argues delay by the district court, our review of the district 

court’s docket reveals that the court has ruled on Hickson’s 

motion. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and 

the motion for bail or release pending appeal. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    124,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               268,571
<PP&E>                                         344,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                 144,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,741
<BONDS>                                        247,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,675
<OTHER-SE>                                     197,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   615,459
<SALES>                                        365,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               365,650
<CGS>                                          214,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,736
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,987
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,987
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.59 Parent. ( a ) The term *parent* means a natural mother or father (including the mother of an illegitimate child or the father of an illegitimate child if the usual family relationship existed), mother or father through adoption, or a person who for a period of not less than 1 year stood in the relationship of a parent to a veteran at any time before his or her entry into active service.
( b ) Foster relationship must have begun prior to the veteran's 21st birthday. Not more than one father and one mother, as defined, will be recognized in any case. If two persons stood in the relationship of father or mother for 1 year or more, the person who last stood in such relationship before the veteran's last entry into active service will be recognized as the *parent.*
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(5))
[26 FR 1568, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 44 FR 45935, Aug. 6, 1979]
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel Bernstein, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Dated:
                    May 10, 2007By:
              /s/
                Daniel BernsteinDaniel
                      Bernstein, President
                    and
                      Chief Executive
                      Officer