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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4250 

To provide for a permanent extension and expansion of the pilot program 

for streamlining awards for innovative technology projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a permanent extension and expansion of the 

pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative 

technology projects. 

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 ‘‘Defense Innovation 

5 and Small Business Momentum Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF PILOT 

7 PROGRAM FOR STREAMLINING AWARDS FOR 

8 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS. 

9 (a) EXCEPTIONS TO COST OR PRICING DATA RE10 QUIREMENTS.—Section 3703 of title 10, United States 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4250 IS

1 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

2 subsection: 

3 ‘‘(g) PROGRAM FOR STREAMLINING AWARDS FOR

4 SMALL BUSINESSES AND NONTRADITIONAL DEFENSE

5 CONTRACTORS.—The requirements under section 3702(a) 

6 of this title shall not apply to any contract, subcontract, 

7 or modification of a contract or subcontract valued at less 

8 than $7,500,000 awarded to a small business concern (as 

9 that term is defined in section 3 of the Small Business 

10 Act (15 U.S.C. 632) or nontraditional defense con11 tractor.’’. 

12 (b) REVISIONS TO DFARS.—The Secretary of De13 fense shall amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regu14 lation Supplement (DFARS) to implement the program 

15 established under subsection (g) of section 3703 of title 

16 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), ensur17 ing the application of the program to all small business 

18 concerns and streamlining the awards process for innova19 tive technology projects. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4439 

To require the Assistant Secretary of Financial Markets of the Department 

of the Treasury to brief certain Senate committees on the debt issuance 

of the Department. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3, 2024 

Mr. HAGERTY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require the Assistant Secretary of Financial Markets of 

the Department of the Treasury to brief certain Senate 

committees on the debt issuance of the Department. 

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 ‘‘Transparency in Debt 

5 Issuance Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BRIEFINGS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Assistant Secretary for Fi8 nancial Markets of the Department of the Treasury shall 

9 brief the Committee on Finance and the Committee on 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4439 IS

1 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on 

2 a quarterly basis about the debt issuance of the Depart3 ment, including a summary of recommendations made by 

4 the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee. 

5 (b) TIMING.—The briefings required under sub6 section (a) should coincide with the publication of the 

7 quarterly refunding report of the Department of the 

8 Treasury. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN McELROY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0498 FCD DAD P

vs.

E. EDELHOFER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. By order filed April 9,

2004, plaintiff was advised that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts

lack authority to require attorneys to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v.

United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel, but the court cannot require such

assistance See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motions will therefore be

denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00498-FCD-DAD Document 35 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for appointment

of counsel filed July 29, 2005, and August 10, 2005, are denied.

DATED: August 15, 2005.

DAD:13

mcel0498.31

Case 2:04-cv-00498-FCD-DAD Document 35 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2
**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 Counterpath Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Bruk, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting 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 to my knowledge:

(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.

Date: December 15, 2005.

/s/ Mark Bruk

Mark Bruk 

President, Chief Executive Officer,

Secretary, Treasurer and Director

(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

BRENT J. NEWELL, California Bar No. 210,312

LUKE W. COLE, California Bar No. 145,505

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

450 Geary Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 346-4179

(415) 346-8723 fax

CAROLINE FARRELL, California Bar No. 202,871

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

1224 Jefferson Street, Suite 25

Delano, CA 93215

(661) 720-9140

(661) 720-9483 fax

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EL COMITÉ PARA EL BIENESTAR DE EARLIMART,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARY-ANN WARMERDAM, et al., 

Defendants,

_______________________________________________

AIR COALITION TEAM,

Intervenor.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV.S-04-0882 LKK KJM

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THE COMPLAINT

Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

Good cause appearing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is granted. 

The First Amended Complaint shall be filed on September 1, 2005.

Dated: August 23, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

Lawrence K. Karlton

Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 2:04-cv-00882-LKK -KJM Document 78 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DANNIS GREENE, Gunner’s Mate Missiles Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

20 USCMA 81, 42 CMR 273

No. 23,150

August 28, 1970

*Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

Prosecution’s use of evidence of Article 15 punishment for absence without leave and disobedience of an order following the appellant’s conviction by special court-martial for an unauthorized absence commencing in May 1969 was erroneous. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970).

Considering the nature of the offense charged and that Greene had suffered no prior convictions, the inadmissible evidence could well have played a part in the military judge’s assessment of a sentence that included a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of $82.00 per month for a like period, and reduction to the pay grade of E-l. In these circumstances, corrective action is advisable. Accordingly, the 'decision of the Court of Military Review as to sentence is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review for meaningful reassessment of the sentence.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge FeR-GUSON concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7844

GEORGE H. VAN WAGNER, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

ANTHONY RISH; JOHN MCMAHON; LARRY DOLPH; DAVID

H. ROBERTS,

Plaintiffs,

versus

SALLY JOHNSON, Doctor, in her official capacity as Associate Warden of Mental Health Services and Head of United States Public Health

Services at Butner Federal Correctional Institute and individually; CATHY HICKS, in her

official capacity as Unit Manager, Federal

Correctional Institute Butner and individually; JIM KING, Case Manager, in his official

capacity at Federal Correctional Institute

Butner and individually; WILBER LEMAY, Counselor, in his official capacity at Federal

Correctional Institute Butner and

individually,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MICHAEL J. QUINLAN, as Director of Bureau of

Prisons in his official capacity and individually; US GOVERNMENT,

Defendants.
2
3

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-92-200-5-BR)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George H. Van Wagner, III, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson

Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court order dismissing his

claims and denying various motions in a multi-plaintiff civil

action. The action continues below on the other plaintiffs' claims.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
ANSWE R t o TSAI AMOTIO N

Apri l 29 , 201 0 Offic e o fth e Ciiie fCounse l Attention : FAAPar t 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , SW

. Washington , D C 2059 1 Docke t No

. 16-09-1 4 

### ANSWE R t o MOTIO N T O STRIK E UNTIMEL Y"AMENDMENT " T O COMPLAIN T

RDM , LL C V

. Te d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t 

## ANSWE R RDM , LL C (RDM ) ask s tha t th e Directo rden yth e MOTIO N T O STRIK E UNTIMEL Y "AMENDMENT " T O COMPLAIN Tfile d b yth e Stat e o fAlaska , Departn^ien t o f Transportatio n an d Publi cFacilities , Te d Steven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t (TSAIA)

. RDM' s complain t agains t TSAI Ai s no t a forma l cour t proceedin g an d therefor e RD M i s unde rn o obligatio n t o fil e a "motio n fo rleave " fo ra n amendmen t t o it s complain t no r"fo rit s acceptance"

. Th e Rule s o fPractic e fo rFederall yAssiste d Airpor t Proceedings , 1 4 Cod e o fFedera l Regulation s Par t 1 6 clearl yallow s th e complainan t t o amen d it s filing

. Th e purpos e o fth e Amendmen t wa s t o indicat e tha t no t onl ywer e AGLAD' s right s brutall yviolate d bu t TSAIA , bu t TSAIA' s polic yfailure s threate n th e large rpubli c interest s a s well

. Becaus e o f th e seriousnes s an d magnitud e o fth e TSAI Apolic yfailures , RD M ask s th e FAAt o fin d TSAI Ai n "non-compliance " an d furthermor e tha t th e FAAden ycontinue d FAA/Publi cfundin g t o TSAI Aunti l prope ran d appropriat e correctiv e action s ar e rendered

. Sincerely ,

Shau n Debenha m ;T H Member , Debenha m Properties , LL C

. ^ Managin g Membe ro fRDM , LL C 296 0 C Street , Suit e 20 2 Anchorage , A K9950 3 

### W : (907)562-933 0 F : (907 ) 562-933 1 E : shaundebenhamPalaska.ne t

RD M V

. TSAI A- Pag e 1 o f1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1694 LKK PAN P

vs.

SHERIFF GARY R. STANTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’

motion for judgment on the pleadings. But he filed and serve an opposition on June 29, 2006.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 29, 2006, motion for an extension of time is denied.

DATED: August 3, 2006.

\004

\mars1694.deny eot

Case 2:04-cv-01694-LKK -EFB Document 101 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dale E. Messick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ DALE E. MESSICK                   
|Dale E. MessickChief Financial Officer
|                                      
|November 13, 2007.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES E. MULROY, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 18, 39 CMR 18

No. 21,203

November 15, 1968

*Lieutenant David E. Miller,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant William A. Carnahan,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

*19Opinion of the Court

Ter Curíam :

The decision of the board of review as to Charge II, specification 1, and Additional Charge II and its specifications, is reversed. United States v Tassos, 18 USCMA 12, 39 CMR 12, this day decided. The findings of guilty as to Charge II, specification 1, and Additional Charge II and its specifications, are set aside and the Charges are ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the board of review for reconsideration of the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II 

 Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-1225 MCE AC P 

 vs. 

TOM L. CAREY, et al. 

 Defendants. ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 / AD TESTIFICANDUM

 Earnest Cassell Woods, II, inmate #D-58091, a necessary and material participant in a 

settlement conference in this case on October 14, 2015, is confined at California State PrisonCentinela, 2302 Brown Road, Imperial, CA 92251, in the custody of the Warden; in order to 

secure this inmate’s attendance it is necessary that a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum 

issue commanding the custodian to produce the inmate before the Honorable Allison Claire, to 

appear by telephonic-conferencing at California State Prison-Centinela on October 14, 2015, at 

1:30 p.m. 

 

 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court, 

commanding the Warden to produce the inmate named above to participate in a settlement 

conference by telephonic-conferencing before the United States District Court at the time and 

place above, until completion of the settlement conference or as ordered by the court; 

 2. The custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate 

and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to fax a courtesy copy of this order and writ of 

habeas corpus ad testificandum to the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison-Centinela 

at (760) 337-7650. 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM 

To: The Warden of California State Prison-Centinela, 2302 Brown Road, Imperial, CA 

92251: 

WE COMMAND you to produce the inmate named above to participate in a settlement 

conference before the United States District Court at the time and place above by telephonicconferencing, until completion of the settlement conference or as ordered by the court. 

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of the 

inmate and have been ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 

DATED: September 25, 2015 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 357 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8167)

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 709400.

*479(Decided September 24, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the above named Appeal to Reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no foreign value.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID T. CHUBBUCK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1748 MCE DAD P

vs.

THE CDC: HIGH DESERT STATE

PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On December 21, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with thirty days

leave to amend. In response to plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to February 21, 2006,

the court granted a sixty-day extension of time on January 31, 2006. On February 8, 2006,

plaintiff requested a second extension of time. The request, which appears to have been prepared

before plaintiff received the order granting a sixty-day extension of time, will be denied as moot. 

On March 20, 2006, plaintiff requested an additional thirty to sixty days to file his amended

complaint. The court will grant plaintiff a final extension of time to May 21, 2006.

Each of plaintiff’s requests for extension of time has been mistitled “[Proposed]

order for an extention [sic] of time.” A request for an extension of time must be so titled. While

parties are permitted to submit proposed orders with a signature line for the assigned judge, all

Case 2:04-cv-01748-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

proposed orders must be electronically filed and must also be submitted in a specific format by email. A filer who cannot file documents electronically is precluded from submitting proposed

orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 8, 2006 request for second extension of time is denied as

moot;

2. Plaintiff’s March 20, 2006 request for third extension of time is granted; and

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be filed on or before May 21, 2006. No

further extension of time will be granted for this purpose.

DATED: April 3, 2006.

DAD:13:bb

chub1748.36sec

Case 2:04-cv-01748-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2
Order entered September 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00898-CR

BRANDON LAWRENCE COOPER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-81168-2011

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE