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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4854 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the annual report on 

privatized military housing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Mr. WARNOCK (for himself and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the annual 

report on privatized military housing, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Military Housing Per5 formance Insight Act’’ or the ‘‘MHPI Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON 

7 PRIVATIZED MILITARY HOUSING. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 2884 of 

9 title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following new paragraphs: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4854 IS

1 ‘‘(15) An overview of the housing data being 

2 used by the Department and the housing data being 

3 sought from management companies. 

4 ‘‘(16) An assessment of how the Secretary of 

5 each military department is using such data to in6 form the on-base housing decisions for such military 

7 department. 

8 ‘‘(17) An explanation of the limitations of any 

9 customer satisfaction data collected, including with 

10 respect to available survey data, the process for de11 termining resident satisfaction, and reasons for 

12 missing data.’’. 

13 (b) PUBLIC REPORTING.—Such subsection is further 

14 amended— 

15 (1) in paragraph (14), by redesignating sub16 paragraphs (A) through (D) as clauses (i) through 

17 (iv), respectively; 

18 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through 

19 (17) as subparagraphs (A) through (Q), respectively; 

20 (3) in subparagraph (E), as redesignated by 

21 paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘paragraphs (1) through 

22 (4)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (A) through 

23 (D)’’; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4854 IS

1 (4) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

2 as so redesignated, by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and 

3 inserting ‘‘(1) The Secretary’’; and 

4 (5) by adding at the end the following new 

5 paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(2) Not later than 30 days after submitting a report 

7 under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall pub8 lish the report on a publicly available website of the De9 partment of Defense.’’. 

10 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (d)(1) 

11 of such section is amended by striking ‘‘paragraphs (1) 

12 through (14) of subsection (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘subpara13 graphs (A) through (Q) of subsection (c)(1)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EX-32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

INFE- Human Resources, Inc. 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 INFE- Human Resources, Inc. (INFE-HR)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending Febuary 29, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur
Viola, Chief Executive Officer of INFE-HR, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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 results of operations of INFE-HR.

/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA
--------------------
       Arthur Viola      Chief Executive Officer          April 13, 2004
                         Sole Director
                         and principal Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9174)

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

Entry No. 917575, etc.

(Decided June 24, 1958)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*Oeorge Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Richardson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed m schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that:

> 1. The merchandise involved in the instant cases consists of confectionery imported from England;

> 2. That said merchandise was appraised on the basis of United States value;

> 3. That the facts with respect to the sale of in the United States of the merchandise here involved are the same as those in Swizzels, Inc. *v.*United States, Reap. Decision 8794 and the issue herein is likewise the same;

> 4. That the record in said case is incorporated in the record herein;

> 5. That the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the ease of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit, (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind equals for each item *472invoice unit price, plus packing, plus drawback of 1 pence per pound of sugar content, and

> 6. That the instant appeals are submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts herein, I find that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved is cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1402), and that the cost of production of the merchandise herein is the invoice unit value, plus packing, plus drawback of 1 pence per pound of sugar content.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Jay Willfred Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6297.

Entry No. 763580, etc.

Invoices dated Burslem, England, April 12, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 21, 1941, etc.

*263(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Siegel & Mandell (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for' decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing 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 merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Levi W. Flagg, *Respondent, v.*Samuel Swift and others, *Appellants.*

Order of city court of Yonkers affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by Gilbert, J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8309 

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide for the inclusion 

of additional information relating to internet freedom in Annual Country 

Reports on Human Rights Practices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Ms. JACOBS (for herself and Ms. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide 

for the inclusion of additional information relating to 

internet freedom in Annual Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices. 

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 ‘‘Global Internet Free5 dom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 It is the sense of Congress that— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8309 IH

1 (1) internet freedom is important to the exer2 cise of human rights; and 

3 (2) the United States Government should 

4 proactively promote the principles of internet free5 dom around the world. 

6 SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELAT7 ING TO INTERNET FREEDOM IN ANNUAL 

8 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS 

9 PRACTICES. 

10 The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended— 

11 (1) in section 116(d) (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d))— 

12 (A) in paragraph (11)(C), by striking 

13 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

14 (B) in paragraph (12)(C)(ii), by striking 

15 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

16 and 

17 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(12) wherever applicable, the extent to 

19 which— 

20 ‘‘(A) state or non-state actors create delib21 erate barriers to access to the internet, includ22 ing by shutting down connectivity or blocking 

23 online content that is protected by international 

24 human rights standards; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8309 IH

1 ‘‘(B) the government engages in undue re2 strictions on free expression and violations of 

3 privacy as they occur online, or legal and extra4 legal repercussions for online speech or activi5 ties that are protected by international human 

6 rights standards.’’; and 

7 (2) in section 502B (22 U.S.C. 2304)— 

8 (A) by redesignating the second subsection 

9 (i) (as added by section 1207(b)(2) of Public 

10 Law 113–4) as subsection (j); and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(k) The report required by subsection (b) shall in13 clude, wherever applicable a description of the extent to 

14 which— 

15 ‘‘(1) state or non-state actors create deliberate 

16 barriers to access to the internet, including by shut17 ting down connectivity or blocking online content 

18 that is protected by international human rights 

19 standards; and 

20 ‘‘(2) the government engages in undue restric21 tions on free expression and violations of privacy as 

22 they occur online, or legal and extralegal repercus23 sions for online speech or activities that are pro24 tected by international human rights standards.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 63149.

#### Air Express International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/6833 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PABLO ALVARADO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued February 19, 1968

Decided April 1, 1968.

*Mr. James B. Zazzali,*Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Bichard B. McGlynn,*Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief; *Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).

*376
      *Mr. Robert J. Jerome*argued the cause for respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

Defendant applied for resentence within the 60-day period specified in *R. R.*3:7-13. His application was denied because the trial court was unable to dispose of the matter within that time limitation. The Appellate Division reversed the order. *State v. Alvarado,*95 *N. J. Super.*595 (1967). One judge of that court having dissented, this appeal to us was prosecuted as of right. *R. R.*1:2-l(b).

We affirm for the reasons given in the majority opinion but add that when, as here, the offense is below the grade of crime, it rests in the discretion of the court, be it the municipal court or the County Court on a trial *de novo,*to decide whether to call for a presentence report. See *R. R.*8:7—8 (a). The mandated requirement for a presentence report, *R. R. 3*:7-10(b), applies to crimes, and does so whether the prosecution is in the Superior or County Court or is in the municipal court on a waiver and request to be tried in that court under *N. J. S. A.*2A:8-22. See *R. R.*3:1—1 and 3 :l-3.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Fbaítcis, Hall and Schettino—5.

*For reversal*— None.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CA-169-1220-AL] 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 43 CFR 1610.2), the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Carrizo Plain National Monument, Monument Advisory Committee members, the California State Department of Fish and Game and the Nature Conservancy will meet as indicated below: 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at the Bakersfield Field Office at 3801 Pegasus Drive. The location is approximately 1 mile east of Hwy. 99 off the Porterville/Sequoia exit turn-off on Hwy. 65. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. and finish at 7 p.m. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting affords the public the opportunity to become informed about the Resource Management Plan planning and provide comments to be considered in the formulation of this plan. This meeting is open to the public, who may present written or verbal comments to be considered for the development of the Resource Management Plan, and discuss other coordination opportunities. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, and the time available, the time allotted for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact BLM as indicated below. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Johna Hurl, Acting Monument Manager, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA., 93308. Phone at (661) 391-6093 or e-mail at:                         *jhurl@blm.gov*

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

Johna Hurl, 

Acting Manager, Carrizo Plain National Monument.

 [FR Doc. E7-5210 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
#### Marks & Rosenfeld, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7304.

Invoices dated Longton, England, January 1946, etc.

Certified January 30, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 27, 1946, etc.

Entry Nos. 741027; 736433.

(Decided June 23, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8219 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8219

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess 
  the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the 
        Lahaina National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lahaina National Heritage Area Study 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Hawaii.
            (3) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the census-
        designated place of Lahaina in Maui County in the State.

SEC. 3. LAHAINA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY.

    The Secretary, in coordination with the County of Maui and in 
consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State 
and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and 
other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies, shall carry 
out, in accordance with section 120103(a) of title 54, United States 
Code, a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating 
the study area as a National Heritage Area, to be known as the 
``Lahaina National Heritage Area''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 IPEX, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Russell  Ingledew,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


August 22, 2005                             /s/ Russell Ingledew
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Russell Ingledew
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Miller, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 811]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered October 5, 1993, convicting him of murder *478in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine him regarding an uncharged robbery which he and one of the victims committed in Virginia several days before the murders in this case. The cross examination on this matter was appropriate given the defendant’s direct testimony in which he stated that the killings were precipitated by a dispute between himself and one of the victims regarding the drugs and money that constituted the proceeds of that robbery. Moreover, the challenged questioning provided pertinent background information and was relevant to the issues of the defendant’s motive and intent in killing the two victims *(see, People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233; *People v Collins,*220 AD2d 610; *People v Webb,*203 AD2d 606; *People v Ebanks,*203 AD2d 199; *People v McDowell,*191 AD2d 515). Additionally, the trial court provided the jury with appropriate limiting instructions regarding the defendant’s uncharged crimes *(see, People v Davis,*169 AD2d 774). Accordingly, given the circumstances of this case and the unusual procedural posture in which the issue arose, we find that the questioning was properly permitted in the sound exercise of the trial court’s broad discretion *(see generally, People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, *cert denied*396 US 846; *People v Griffin,*131 AD2d 779). Moreover, the probative value of the uncharged robbery outweighed its prejudicial effect *(see generally, People v Alvino, supra; People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350).

We discern no basis in the record for disturbing the consecutive sentences imposed by the court *(see, People v Truesdell,*70 NY2d 809; *People v Sumpter,*203 AD2d 605; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.