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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2019 

For the relief of Charmaine Bieda. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2009 

Mr. KANJORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Charmaine Bieda. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM. 

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 

6 Charmaine Bieda of Kingston, Pennsylvania, the sum of 

7 $10,000,000, or, in the event of the death of Charmaine 

8 Bieda prior to such payment, $2,500,000 each to Annette 

9 Bieda, Bobbi Ann Dwyer, Madeleine Dwyer, and Michelle 

10 Pushefski. The payment required by this section shall be 

11 in full satisfaction of all claims that Charmaine Bieda may 

12 have against the United States relating to the murder of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2019 IH

1 her daughter, Charlene Michelle Bieda Moore, by 

2 Charlene’s husband Bruce Moore on December 19, 1984, 

3 while Charlene and Bruce were serving in the United 

4 States Army and after Charlene had requested that the 

5 Army protect her from Bruce and had informed their su6 periors that he was abusing her. 

7 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES. 

8 It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 per9 cent of the payment required by section 1 to be paid to 

10 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren11 dered in connection with the payment. Any person who 

12 violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and 

13 shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 

14 18, United States Code. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report
of PURE Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Andrew J. Buckland, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.

|                 |                                                                  
|---------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|October 31, 2005 | /s/ Andrew J. Buckland
Andrew J. Buckland
Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.559 Special requirements for nitric acid (less than 70 percent).

A containment system that carries nitric acid (less than 70 percent) must be of stainless steel that resists corrosion by nitric acid.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-08559, 333-35237 and 333-41137) and on Form 
S-3 (Nos. 333-05517 and 333-41487) of InVision Technologies, Inc. of our 
report dated February 19, 1999 appearing in the 1998 Annual Report to 
Stockholders which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
March 30, 1999
The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-4072

_____________

Rodney Tyrone Hopkins, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Tannery West, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: June 27, 1997

Filed: July 7, 1997

_____________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Tyrone Hopkins appeals from the District Court's adverse grant of

1

summary judgment to Tannery West, Inc., in his Title VII action. After review of the

parties' briefs and the record, we conclude the District Court's judgment was correct.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56254-56255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twentieth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
twentieth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held October 2-4, 2012 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the following facilities at 
Jetcraft Corporation, CH-4030 Basel-Airport, Basel, Switzerland, +41 58 
158 4958 (Phone), +41 58 158 4988 (Fax), Web Site: www.jetcraft.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th 
Street, NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 
330-0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Additional contact information: Please contact Tim 
Etherington, tjetheri@rockwellcollins.com, telephone (319) 295-5233 or 
mobile at (319) 431-7154, to register for the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will 
include the following:

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Plenary Discussion (sign in at 9:00 a.m.)

 Introductions and administrative items.
 Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting.
 Review of terms of reference.
 Status of DO-XXX.
 WG-1 DO-315C draft review.

[[Page 56255]]

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Plenary Discussion

 WG-1 DO-315C draft review.
 WG-2 objectives and overview.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Plenary Discussion

 WG-1 DO-315C draft review.
 Administrative items.
 Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 6, 2012
David Sicard,
Manager, Business Operations Group, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-22460 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20427-04 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

MELISSA NANETTE LAPONSIE, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On September 17, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a 

plea hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on 

September 17, 2014, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 59, is ADOPTED. 

 

1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM Doc # 74 Filed 10/07/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 384
 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 58, is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: October 7, 2014 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on October 7, 2014. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM Doc # 74 Filed 10/07/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 385
§ 708.10 Procedures for salary offset. ( a ) Deductions to liquidate an employee's debt will be by the method and in the amount stated in the Assistant Staff Director for Management's written notice of intent to collect from the employee's current pay, unless alternative arrangements for repayment are made.
( b ) If the employee filed a petition for a hearing with the Assistant Staff Director for Management before the expiration of the period provided, then deductions will begin after the hearing official has provided the employee with a hearing, and a final written decision has been rendered in favor of the Commission.
( c ) A debt will be collected in a lump-sum if possible.
( d ) If an employee is financially unable to pay in one lump sum or the amount of the debt exceeds 15 percent of disposable pay for an officially established pay interval, collection must be made in installments. The size of the installment deduction(s) will bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the debt and the deduction will be established for a period not greater than the anticipated period of employment. The deduction for the pay intervals for any period must not exceed 15% of disposable pay unless the employee has agreed in writing to a deduction of a greater amount. If possible, the installment payment will be sufficient in size and frequency to liquidate the debt in no more than three years.
( e ) Installment payments may be less than 15 percent of disposable pay if the Assistant Staff Director for Management determines that the 15 percent deduction would create an extreme financial hardship.
( f ) Installment payments of less than $25.00 per pay period or $50.00 per month, will only be accepted in the most unusual circumstances.
( g ) Unliquidated debts may be offset by the paying agency under 31 U.S.C. 3716 against any financial payment due to a separating employee including but not limited to final salary payment, retired pay, or lump sum leave, etc. as of the date of separation to the extent necessary to liquidate the debt.
( h ) If the debt cannot be liquidated by offset from any final payment due a separated employee it may be recovered by the offset in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3716 from any later payments due the former employee from the United States.
§ 77.6 Emergency procedures. ( a ) Should the Department determine that it cannot adequately protect assets of the Federal government available to a recipient organization under its letter of credit without taking remedial action prior to the procedures specified in § 77.5, it may immediately take remedial action subject to the subsequent completion of those procedures.
( b ) Where the Department has taken remedial action as described in paragraph (a) of this section, it will notify the recipient organization orally of the remedial action within one business day of its imposition and in writing within seven business days of its imposition. The written notice will conform to that described in § 77.5(a).
( c ) After receipt of the written notice, the recipient organization will have the same opportunity to respond as described in § 77.5(b)(1).
( d ) The Department will issue a final decision in writing no later than twenty days following receipt of any response submitted by the recipient organization.
#### § 81.32 Signature of documents.

The signature of a party, authorized officer, employee or attorney constitutes a certificate that he has read the document, that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay. If a document is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this section, it may be stricken as sham and false and the proceeding may proceed as though the document had not been filed. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted.
#### § 108.223 Guards on exposed equipment.

Each unit must have hand covers, guards, or rails installed on all belts, gears, shafts, pulleys, sprockets, spindles, flywheels or other reciprocating, rotating or moving parts of machinery or equipment normally exposed to contact by personnel.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2193 

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from implementing any policy to prevent 

or place undue restriction on the sale of intact spent military small 

arms ammunition casings to domestic manufacturers of small arms ammunition that are approved under trade security controls. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2009 

Mr. CHAFFETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from implementing 

any policy to prevent or place undue restriction on the 

sale of intact spent military small arms ammunition casings to domestic manufacturers of small arms ammunition that are approved under trade security controls. 

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 ‘‘Affordable Reloaded 

5 Munitions Supply (ARMS) Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2193 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RE2 STRICTION ON SALE OF INTACT SPENT MILI3 TARY SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION CASINGS. 

4 The Secretary of Defense may not implement any 

5 policy that would prevent or place undue restriction on 

6 the sale of intact spent military small arms ammunition 

7 casings to domestic manufacturers of small arms ammuni8 tion that are approved under trade security controls. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
§ 670.15 Modification, suspension, and revocation. ( a ) The Director may modify, suspend, or revoke, in whole or in part, any permit issued under this subpart: ( 1 ) In order to make the permit consistent with any change to any regulation in this part made after the date of issuance of this permit;
( 2 ) If there is any change in conditions which make the permit inconsistent with the purpose of the Act and the regulations in this part; or
( 3 ) In any case in which there has been any violation of any term or condition of the permit, any regulation in this part, or any provision of the Act.
( b ) Whenever the Director proposes any modifications, suspension, or revocation of a permit under this section, the permittee shall be afforded opportunity, after due notice, for a hearing by the Director with respect to such proposed modification, suspension or revocation. If a hearing is requested, the action proposed by the Director shall not take effect before a decision is issued by him after the hearing, unless the proposed action is taken by the Director to meet an emergency situation.
( c ) Notice of the modification, suspension, or revocation of any permit by the Director shall be published in the Federal Register, within 10 days from the date of the Director's decision.
<PAGE>

                                                                 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 First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William W. Harrod,
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) 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 as of
and for the period covered by the Report.

DATE:  August 14, 2003                      BY:   /s/ William W. Harrod
       ---------------                            ---------------------
                                                  William W. Harrod
                                                  President and Chief
                                                   Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to First Capital, Inc. and will be retained by First Capital, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7024

JAMES E. ROSE, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. RANDY DEMORY , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 4:22

- cv - 01774

- HMH )

Submitted : January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. James E. Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7024 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: James E. Rose, Jr., a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rose’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Rose that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although Rose received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate r eview because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal . We deny Rose’s motion to consolidate. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and USCA4 Appeal: 22-7024 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7024 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
1 

No. 06-14-00133-CR

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH SUPREME 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA 

DAVID MICHAEL DOLLINS, 

Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee 

Appealed in Cause No. F-8840

8

th Judicial District Court of Franklin County, Texas 

APPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

ACCEPTED

06-14-00133-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

1/27/2015 2:27:39 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 1/27/2015 2:27:39 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
2

 By:/s/ Nicholas C. Harrison

 Nicholas C. Harrison

Assistant District Attorney

 State Bar No 24062768

P.O. Box 882

Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483

(903) 885-0641
3

NO. 06-14-00133-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

VS. § 6TH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 

DAVID MICHAEL DOLLINS § TEXARKANA, TEXAS

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES the State of Texas by and through her District Attorney for the Eighth 

Judicial District of Franklin County, Texas, regarding the above styled and numbered cause, and 

would respectfully request an extension of time for filing the State’s brief in said case pursuant to 

Rule 73 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and would respectfully show the following:

I.

The Brief for the State on appeal was due to be filed on or before 9

th day of February

2015. 

II.

That the State respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant an extension of time of 

30 days. In connection therewith, the State would show the following facts relied upon in good 

faith to show good cause to the Honorable Court of Appeals regarding this motion for extension 

of time:

The attorney for the State of Texas responsible for writing the Appellee’s brief will be 

trying a multiple-indictment Indecency with a Child case during the week of February 

2, 2015.
4

This request for an extension of time is sought not for delay but to provide the State with 

an adequate amount of time to properly respond to the Appellant’s brief so that justice may be 

done.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texas respectfully requests and 

prays that the Honorable Court of Appeals grant an extension up to the present day to prepare 

and file an Appellee Brief.

Respectfully submitted,

Nicholas C. Harrison

Assistant District Attorney

 By:/s/ Nicholas C. Harrison

 Nicholas C. Harrison

Assistant District Attorney

 State Bar No 24062768

P.O. Box 882

Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483

(903) 885-0641
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was 

forwarded to the attorney for the Defendant on January 27, 2015.

By:/s/ Nicholas C. Harrison

 Nicholas C. Harrison

Assistant District Attorney

 State Bar No 24062768

P.O. Box 882

Sulphur Springs, Texas 75483

(903) 885-0641

(903) 885-0640 (fax)