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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 565 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants 

to pregnancy-help organizations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2023 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. 

RUBIO, and Mr. HAWLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to award grants to pregnancy-help organizations. 

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 ‘‘Pregnancy Center Se5 curity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR PREGNANCY-HELP ORGANIZATIONS. 

7 Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 565 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 399V–8. GRANTS FOR PREGNANCY-HELP ORGANIZA2 TIONS. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award 

4 grants, on a competitive basis, to pregnancy-help organiza5 tions. 

6 ‘‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A grant awarded under 

8 this section shall be used for upgrading the facilities 

9 of the pregnancy-help organization receiving such 

10 grant, including through— 

11 ‘‘(A) implementing security upgrades, such 

12 as by installing security cameras or security 

13 systems; or 

14 ‘‘(B) improvements to comply with require15 ments under the Americans with Disabilities 

16 Act of 1990, including regulations promulgated 

17 under such Act. 

18 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITED USES.—Notwithstanding 

19 paragraph (1), no funds from a grant under this 

20 section may be— 

21 ‘‘(A) used to perform, assist, counsel, pre22 scribe, refer for, or encourage abortion; or 

23 ‘‘(B) provided by the pregnancy-help orga24 nization to any other entity that performs, as25 sists, counsels, prescribes, refers for, or encour26 ages abortion. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 565 IS

1 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION OF PREGNANCY-HELP ORGANIZA2 TION.—In this section, the term ‘pregnancy-help organiza3 tion’— 

4 ‘‘(1) means an organization that seeks to pro5 vide a range of services to individuals facing unin6 tended pregnancies, with the intention of encour7 aging pregnant women to give birth to their unborn 

8 children; and 

9 ‘‘(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), does not 

10 include any organization that— 

11 ‘‘(A) performs, assists, counsels, pre12 scribes, refers for, or encourages abortion; or 

13 ‘‘(B) affiliates with any organization that 

14 performs, assists, counsels, prescribes, refers 

15 for, or encourages abortion. 

16 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

17 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

18 necessary to carry out this section.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
§ 1238.26 What are the restrictions on use for permanent and unscheduled microform records? ( a ) Agencies must not use the silver gelatin master microform or duplicate silver gelatin microform of permanent or unscheduled records created in accordance with § 1238.14 of this part for reference purposes. Agencies must ensure that the master microform remains clean and undamaged during the process of making a duplicating master.
( b ) Agencies must use duplicates for: ( 1 ) Reference;
( 2 ) Further duplication on a recurring basis;
( 3 ) Large-scale duplication; and
( 4 ) Distribution of records on microform.
( c ) Agencies retaining the original record in accordance with an approved records disposition schedule may apply agency standards for the use of microform records.
# EUR-Lex - 12008M/PRO/23 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008M/PRO/23

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - PROTOCOLS - Protocol (No 23) on external relations of the Member States with regard to the crossing of external borders **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0304 - 0304 *

PROTOCOL (No 23)

ON EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES WITH REGARD TO THE CROSSING OF EXTERNAL BORDERS

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the need of the Member States to ensure effective controls at their external borders, in cooperation with third countries where appropriate,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

The provisions on the measures on the crossing of external borders included in Article 77(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall be without prejudice to the competence of Member States to negotiate or conclude agreements with third countries as long as they respect Union law and other relevant international agreements.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 223.305 Agreements. The Forest Service may enter into an agreement under this subpart in lieu of a contract. ( a ) The regulations governing Federal financial assistance relationships are not applicable to such agreements.
( b ) All agreements under this section shall contain a fire liability provision that is in substantially the same form as the fire liability provision contained in integrated resource timber contracts, as described in Forest Service contract numbered 2400-13, part H, section 4.
#### § 1223.16 How are vital records identified?

Agencies identify vital records in the context of the emergency management function. Vital records are those that are needed to perform the most critical functions of the agency and those needed to protect legal and financial rights of the Government and of the persons affected by its actions. Vital records also include emergency plans and related records that specify how an agency will respond to an emergency. The informational content of records series and electronic records systems determines which are vital records. Only the most recent and complete sources of the information are vital records.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

                           PERSISTENCE SOFTWARE, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PRUSUANT 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 Persistence Software, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christine Russell, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ CHRISTINE RUSSELL
-----------------------
Christine Russell
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003
§ 1211.140 Dissemination of policy. ( a ) *Notification of policy.* ( 1 ) Each recipient shall implement specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for admission and employment, students and parents of elementary and secondary school students, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient, that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the educational programs or activities that it operates, and that it is required by Title IX and these Title IX regulations not to discriminate in such a manner. Such notification shall contain such information, and be made in such manner, as the designated agency official finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by Title IX and these Title IX regulations, but shall state at least that the requirement not to discriminate in education programs or activities extends to employment therein, and to admission thereto unless §§ 1211.300 through 1211.310 do not apply to the recipient, and that inquiries concerning the application of Title IX and these Title IX regulations to such recipient may be referred to the employee designated pursuant to § 1211.135, or to the designated agency official.
( 2 ) Each recipient shall make the initial notification required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 90 days of September 29, 2000 or of the date these Title IX regulations first apply to such recipient, whichever comes later, which notification shall include publication in: ( i ) Newspapers and magazines operated by such recipient or by student, alumnae, or alumni groups for or in connection with such recipient; and
( ii ) Memoranda or other written communications distributed to every student and employee of such recipient.
( b ) *Publications.* ( 1 ) Each recipient shall prominently include a statement of the policy described in paragraph (a) of this section in each announcement, bulletin, catalog, or application form that it makes available to any person of a type, described in paragraph (a) of this section, or which is otherwise used in connection with the recruitment of students or employees.
( 2 ) A recipient shall not use or distribute a publication of the type described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that suggests, by text or illustration, that such recipient treats applicants, students, or employees differently on the basis of sex except as such treatment is permitted by these Title IX regulations.
( c ) *Distribution.* Each recipient shall distribute without discrimination on the basis of sex each publication described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and shall apprise each of its admission and employment recruitment representatives of the policy of nondiscrimination described in paragraph (a) of this section, and shall require such representatives to adhere to such policy.
**Exhibit 99.5**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-161320 on Form F-10, Registration Statement No. 333-162944 on Form F-3 and Registration Statement Nos 333-125486, 333-121629, 333-115750, 333-110964 and 333-103562 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports dated February 23, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements of TELUS Corporation and the effectiveness of TELUS Corporation’s internal controls over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of TELUS Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2011.

 
| /s/   Deloitte & Touche LLP           |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |
| Independent   Registered Chartered Accountants |
| Vancouver,   Canada                            |
| March 16,   2012                          |

 

----
§ 1253.1 National Archives Building in Washington, DC. ( a ) *The Museum and Rotunda.* The entrance to the National Archives Museum, including the Rotunda and Charters of Freedom, is on Constitution Avenue NW, between 7th and 9th Streets. The Museum is open every day except Thanksgiving and December 25. Last admission to the Museum is 30 minutes prior to closing. Admission to the Museum is free, although you may make advance reservations online for a service charge. Information on hours and reservations is online at *https://museum.archives.gov/visit .* The phone number for Museum information is 202.357.5061.
( b ) *Research.* The research entrance is located at 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Research hours are online at *https://www.archives.gov/dc .* The phone number for the National Archives Building is 866.272.6272.
( c ) The building's address is 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20408.
# EUR-Lex - 12007L/AFI/DCL/21 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12007L/AFI/DCL/21

**Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 - A. Declarations concerning provisions of the Treaties - 21. Declaration on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation **

*
Official Journal 306 , 17/12/2007 P. 0257 - 0257 *

21. Declaration on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation

The Conference acknowledges that specific rules on the protection of personal data and the free movement of such data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation based on Article 16 B of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union may prove necessary because of the specific nature of these fields.

--------------------------------------------------
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-10328 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Tomas Salinas, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:18-CR-375-2 

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Tomas Salinas has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Salinas has filed a response. Among other things, he suggests that he 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

November 17, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-10328 Document: 00516096643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2021
No. 21-10328 

2 

received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The record is not 

sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of this claim; we 

therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. 

See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Salinas’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 21-10328 Document: 00516096643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2021
# EUR-Lex - 12008E323 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E323

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE II: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 5: Common provisions - Article 323 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0188 - 0188 *

Article 323

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall ensure that the financial means are made available to allow the Union to fulfil its legal obligations in respect of third parties.

--------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20463 

1 

2 MEMORANDUM

3 

4 TO: The Commission

5 

6 FROM: Lisa J. Stevenson 

7 Acting General Counsel 

8 

9 BY: Charles Kitcher

10 Associate General Counsel for Enforcement

11 

12 Claudio J. Pavia 

13 Deputy Associate General Counsel for Enforcement

14 

15 Roy Luckett 

16 Acting Assistant General Counsel

17 

18 Don Campbell 

19 Attorney 

20 

21 SUBJECT: MUR 7537 (Unknown Respondents) 

22 

23 RE: Notification of Respondent 

24 

25 

26 On September 30, 2021, the Commission decided to merge MUR 7532 into MUR 7537 

27 and found reason to believe that Unknown Respondents violated 52 U.S.C § 30120(a) by failing 

28 to include proper disclaimers on mailers and internet video ads concerning candidates Erik 

29 Paulsen and Ann Wagner on the basis that the communications contained express advocacy, and 

30 found reason to believe that Unknown Respondents violated 52 U.S.C § 30104(b) or (c), and (g) 

31 with regard to the mailers and internet video ads, on the basis that the communications contained 

32 express advocacy, by failing to report an independent expenditure. See Certification ¶ 8.a-b, d, 

33 MUR 7537 (Unknown Respondents) (Oct. 4, 2021). The Office of General Counsel began an

34 investigation to identify the Unknown Respondents. See id. ¶ 8.g. 

35 

36 Based on our investigative findings to date, the Unknown Respondent is Care in Action, 

37 Inc., a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt corporation based in New York, NY. As such, consistent with 

38 previous Commission practice in complaint-generated matters involving initially unknown 

39 respondents, we intend to notify Care in Action, Inc., about the allegations made in the 

40 Complaints and offer it an opportunity to respond. See, e.g., MURs 7355 (Heller for Senate, et 

41 al.); 6838 (Aossey); 6642 (Kauffman). 

CK by DC

MUR753700124
#### § 13.1140 Who determines eligibility?

The superintendent will make a written determination of an applicant's eligibility for the lifetime access permit based on information provided. A copy of the determination will be mailed to the applicant. If additional information is required to make an eligibility determination, the applicant will be notified in writing of that need and be given an opportunity to provide it.
#### STATE OF VERMONT v. WALTER MARTIN, APT.

October Term, 1895.

*Repeal of statute by implications. Abatement of liqiior nuisance.*

*í.*No. 68, Acts 1894, providing that the court of chancery may abate a nuisance created by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, does not repeal by implication R. L., ss. 3837-40, which provide for the abatement of the same kind of a nuisance by other means.

*2.*When a subsequent statute repeals a preceding one by implication considered.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace •adjudging the respondent guilty of maintaining a nuisance. In the county court the respondent moved that the complaint •be dismssed for that those sections of the statute upon which it was founded were repealed by Act No. 68, 1894. Heard upon such motion at the March term, 1895, Rutland •county, Thompson, J., presiding. Motion denied. The respondent excepts. Exception passed to supreme court before final judgment.

*J. M. Slade*for the respondent.

*J. C.*Jones, state’s attorney, for the state.

TAFT, J.

The respondent is complained of for keeping .a nuisance and the only question before us is whether R. L., :ss. 3837-8-9-40, were repealed by the passage of No. 68, Acts *941894. They were not repealed in express terms. The two statutes are not repugnant, for a remedy to abate a nuisance, if there is no other objection, may well exist, both at law and in equity. It is argued that the sections in question were repealed by implication, by the passage of the Act of 1894. A repeal by implication is not favored. Although every statute is, by implication, a repeal of all prior statutes on the same subject, so far as it is contrary and repugnant thereto, and that without any repealing clause, it is not a repeal if it be possible to reconcile the two acts of the legislature together. A repeal by implication is permitted only in cases of very strong repugnancy or irreconcilable inconsistency such as does not exist in this case.

Itis insisted that the legislature intended to repeal ss. 3837-8-9-40, R. L., by the passage of No. 68, Acts 1894, but such could not have been its intent, for at the same session the sections were continued by the passage of V. S., ss. 4513-4-5-6.

*The ruling of the court below was*correct, *its judgment is affirmed and cause remanded.*
Cheshire,

No. 4735.

#### Raymond R. Blanchard *v.*George Arlen.

Submitted June 3, 1959.

Decided July 10, 1959.

*James S. Davis*for the plaintiff, furnished no brief.

*Walter H. Gentsch*and *William D. Tribble*for the defendant, furnished no brief.

Wheeler, J.

It has been held here on so many occasions that citation of authority seems unnecessary that in passing on defendant’s motion for a nonsuit and directed verdict the Court must consider the evidence for the plaintiff as true and construe all the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff. The motion for a *211directed verdict raised the issue of the right to it either by reason of insufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence or of conclusive proof of a good defense.

The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove the following facts: On the morning of April 9, 1957, at about 6:30 A. M., the plaintiff was a passenger in a motor vehicle proceeding toward Keene. It was snowing and the highway was slippery. The visibility was described as “hazy-like” but headlights were not required. The route took them up a steep hill which was plowed out only one lane wide. When about half way up the hill, plaintiff’s driver stopped his vehicle behind a parked or stalled truck. Plaintiff decided to get out and survey the situation and proceeded to the left-hand side of the truck opposite the front door. The next he remembers is hearing a horn blow and a car coming up the hill to his rear and “ . . . I turned, and he was right on me there.” The plaintiff tried to get out of the way, but the right front fender of the defendant’s car struck him in the back.

A passenger in the defendant’s vehicle testified that as the car started up the hill she observed cars and trucks stopped about five to six hundred feet ahead and that the defendant’s car started to slip a little and “he stepped on it to get up the hill” and that his speed was “kind of fast.” The defendant offered no evidence.

As the defendant approached the plaintiff he could see at least three vehicles in the ditch five to six hundred feet ahead, partially obstructing the open lane. It was findable that there were other persons standing in the lane besides the plaintiff. Faced with this situation, instead of slowing down the defendant accelerated his speed to make the grade. On these facts the defendant could be found guilty of negligence which was causal. *Scahill*v. *Jabre,*101 N. H. 263.

The defendant relied primarily on contributory negligence. The plaintiff could reasonably suppose that the defendant would exercise due care as he approached the parked vehicles and would see the plaintiff and because of the grade could readily stop or at least use due care in attempting to pass when only half of the highway was open. The Court was not required to find defendant guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. *Hill*v. *Company,*96 N. H. 14.

*Judgment on the verdict.*

All concurred.