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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 572 

Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex offender registries 

for background checks. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2007 

Mr. KING of New York submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex 

offender registries for background checks. 

Whereas registries tracking sex offenders are important tools 

in protecting against recidivism among sex offenders; 

Whereas the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 

Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (the 

‘‘Wetterling Act’’, 42 U.S.C. 14071), established guidelines for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and territories to require sex offenders to register where they reside, work, and attend school, as applicable; 

Whereas the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act 

(the ‘‘Walsh Act’’, Public Law 109–248), expanded the 

range of offenses that require registration in the 

Wetterling Act, as well as extended the requirement to 

register to juveniles convicted of serious sex offenses; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 572 IH 

Whereas the Walsh Act requires all jurisdictions to implement at least the registration requirements described in 

title I of the Walsh Act by July 27, 2009; and 

Whereas section 120 of the Walsh Act established the Dru 

Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website to enable 

the public to obtain relevant information for each sex offender by a single query for any given zip code or geographical radius: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives encour2 ages— 

3 (1) employers to check the names of potential 

4 employees with the Federal and State sex offender 

5 registries when hiring for positions that involve 

6 teaching, supervising, interacting with, or working in 

7 the general vicinity of children; 

8 (2) online dating sites to check the names of 

9 site members and individuals seeking site member10 ship with the Federal and State sex offender reg11 istries, and take appropriate measures to prevent in12 appropriate use of such sites, including prohibiting 

13 access to individuals that are listed on such reg14 istries; and 

15 (3) all States and jurisdictions to expeditiously 

16 implement at least the registration requirements de17 scribed in title I of the Walsh Act before July 27, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 572 IH 

1 2009, and to the greatest extent possible implement 

2 stricter requirements than those so described. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
INCLUDED WITH THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND
THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,668
<SECURITIES>                                    20,913
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,108
<PP&E>                                          21,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,546)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,113
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,498)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.37)
        

</TABLE>
Harquahala Mountains

(SCRMA)

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1

Map 25

Harcuvar

Management Unit

Multiple Resource Allocations

0 1 2 3 4

Miles

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Management Unit

Resource Allocations

None

County Boundary

YAVAPAI COUNTY

MARICOPA COUNTY

Centennial

Wash

LA PAZ C

OUNTY

M

A

RIC

OPA

C

OUNTY
#### Colleen D. KNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1040.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 27, 2001.

Colleen D. Knight, pro se. Kelly Claire Connelly, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, PA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Colleen D. Knight appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Knight’s claim for disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Knight v. Apfel,*No. CA-99-83-1 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 29, 2000). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
No. 67548.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/20994 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items in question consist of tubes only, without lenses (marked lubaw on the commercial invoice), and are not complete microscopes, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXCERPT FROM
                                    MINUTES
                           BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
                                AUGUST 19, 1991
                              TELCO SYSTEMS, INC.
                                        
         On motions duly made and seconded, the Board also unanimously approved
the following resolutions:

VOTED:            That the Corporation hereby amends paragraph 13 of its 1983
                  EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (relating to assignability of
                  rights under the Plan) by deleting the first sentence and
                  inserting the following new sentence:

                      'No rights of any employee under this Plan shall be
                      assignable by him or her, by operation of law, or
                      otherwise, except (a) to the extent that a member is
                      permitted to designate a beneficiary or beneficiaries as
                      provided above, or (b) by will or applicable laws of
                      descent and distribution if no such beneficiary is
                      designated.'

VOTED:            Regarding the Corporation's 1983 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN,
                  that the President or the Chief Financial Officer, with the
                  assistance of counsel, advise in writing those persons who may
                  be deemed to be Directors or Officers of the Corporation
                  within the meaning of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange
                  Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations thereunder of the
                  conditions required to be satisfied under S.E.C. Rule 16b-3 so
                  that transactions by such persons under said Plan shall be
                  exempt from Section 16(b).



                                  exhibit 10.4


                                       38
No. 59736.

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 166268-K, etc. (New York).

*358Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of carbon powder similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(42 C. C. P. A. 207, C. A. D. 595), the claim at 12)4 percent under the provision in paragraph 216, as modified, *supra,*for “plates, rods, and other forms, of whatever material composed, and wholly or partly manufactured, for manufacturing into” brushes for electric motors, generators, or other electrical machines or appliances was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of Morganite strips for trolley inserts, similar to those the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 76, C. D. 1448), were held dutiable at 12)4 percent undei said modified paragraph 216 as forms for manufacturing into brushes for electrical appliances, as claimed.
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
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of TouchIT Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify that:
 
 The Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
 
 /s/ Recep TanismanRecep Tanisman

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

September 20, 2011
 
 /s/ Andrew BrabinAndrew Brabin

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

September 20, 2011
WAIVER dated as of August 10, 2000 to the
                                      Mortgage made and entered into as of
                                      July   9,   1998   between   Syscomm
                                      International    Corporation    (the
                                      "Borrower")  and The Chase Manhattan
                                      Bank,  a  banking  corporation  duly
                                      organized  and  existing  under  the
                                      laws of the  State of New York  (the
                                      "Bank")


WHEREAS, the Borrower wishes to waive the provision of the Mortgage with respect
to the required quarterly consolidated net loss;

WHEREAS,  the Bank has  consented  to waive that  provision  of the  Mortgage to
reflect the changes herein set forth;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements herein
contained, the parties hereby agree as follows;

         Waiver of Section 53:
         ---------------------
         Compliance  with Section 53 of the Mortgage is hereby  waived to permit
         the Borrower to incur a quarterly  consolidated net loss for the fiscal
         quarter  ending  June 30,  2000 as long as the net loss for the quarter
         was not greater  than  $550,000.  The Borrower was required to report a
         consolidated  net loss not greater than $150,000 for the fiscal quarter
         ending June 30, 2000.

The Waiver shall be construed  and enforced in  accordance  with the laws of the
State of New York.

Expect as expressly amended or consented to hereby, the Mortgage shall remain in
full force and effect in accordance with the original terms thereof.  The Waiver
herein contained is limited specifically to the matters set forth above and does
not  constitute  directly or by  implication an amendment or waiver of any other
provision  of the Mortgage or any default  which may occur or may have  occurred
under the Mortgage.

Capitalized  terms used herein and not otherwise  defined  herein shall have the
same meanings as defined in the Mortgage.

The Borrower  hereby  represents and warrants that,  after giving effect to this
Waiver,  no Event of Default or Default exists under the Mortgage or any related
documents.

This Waiver shall become effective when duly executed counterparts hereof which,
when taken  together,  bear the  signatures of each of the parties  hereto shall
have been delivered to the Bank.


<PAGE>




IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Borrower and the Bank have caused the Waiver to be duly
executed  by their duly  authorized  officers,  all as of the day and year first
above written.


                                    Syscomm International Corporation


                                By: /s/ John H. Spielberger
                                    -----------------------
                                    John H. Spielberger, Chief Executive Officer


ATTEST:

/s/ John C. Spielberger
------------------------------
Secretary, John C. Spielberger

Accepted this 14th day of August, 2000
By the Chase Manhattan Bank


By: Christopher Zimmerman
Title: Vice President
From: dhnztt@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:51:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Donna Meyer

Davenport, NE 68335
From: Katie Thilges

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:56:49 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Katie Thilges
Ankeny, Iowa
From: lorrainenordahl@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:24:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lorraine Nordahl

Vancouver, WA 98662
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7629** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SEAN ANTONIO ROBERTSON, a/k/a Lil Sean , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7:10

- cr - 00054

- SGW

- 5 ; 7:12

- cv - 80456

- SGW

- RSB )

Submitted : December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Sean Antonio Robertson , Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Rene Day, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sean Antonio Robertson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the de nial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robertson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robertson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
BEFORE THE FIRST DIVISION,

APRIL 5, 1967

No. P67/95.

#### Selectile Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/10340(B) (Los Angeles).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of polished marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Selectile Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 30, C.D. 2504), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

(Note : The following protests were decided by a special first division consisting of Oliver, Watson, and Bao, Judges.)