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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 815 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 815

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements 
 relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for 
   emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care 
                    program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2023

 Mrs. Rodgers of Washington (for herself, Mr. Bergman, and Mr. Pappas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements 
 relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for 
   emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care 
                    program, 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 ``Removing Extraneous Loopholes 
Insuring Every Veteran Emergency Act'' or the ``RELIEVE Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EMERGENCY 
              TREATMENT FURNISHED TO VETERANS.

    (a) Eligibility Requirements.--Section 1725(b)(2)(B) of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, unless such emergency 
treatment was furnished during the 60-day period following the date on 
which the veteran enrolled in the health care system specified in 
subparagraph (A), in which case no requirement for prior receipt of 
care shall apply'' before the period.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to emergency treatment furnished on or after the 
date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.17(b)



 Exhibit 10.17(b) 
 June 1, 2014 
 300 North Capital LLC 
 300 North Lake Avenue - Suite 1120 
 Pasadena, CA 91101-4111 

Attention: Ms. Erin Chetwood 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Ms. Chetwood: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below
(the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 



	 	•	 	 300 North Capital Master Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alice Lonero
		 	Alice Lonero
		 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	300 NORTH CAPITAL LLC
		
	By:            	 	/s/ Richard S. Campagna
		
	 Print Name:
	 	Richard S. Campagna
		
	AL/sr
FastenTech, Inc. and Subsidiaries



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the FastenTech, Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Ronald B. Kalich,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael R. Elia, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

(1). The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2). The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 13, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald B. Kalich   
|                        |  |     |  | Ronald B. Kalich       
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |    
|Date: February 13, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael R. Elia    
|                        |  |     |  | Michael R. Elia        
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |     |  | FastenTech, Inc.       



27
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10567 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY B. BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CR-245-ALL-P

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Assistant Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Anthony Benavides has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Benavides has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. The motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ANDREW DARVIN HERSH,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ADAMS 

COUNTY AND MARK GARMAN, 

SUPERINTENDENT SCI- ROCKVIEW,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 130 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2020, the “Petition for Extraordinary Relief at 

King’s Bench” is DENIED.
#### Valley Forge Village, Respondent, v Nancy Anthony et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

June 14, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Richard Borda*for appellants. *Halpern & Zuckerman (Bernard Meyerson*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgments affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of the court below (92 Misc 2d 1007).

We are of the opinion that the trial court accurately phrased the legal issues and arrived at the correct determination.

Concur: Farley, P. J., Gagliardi and Silberman, JJ.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES LEE WILSON, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Peter Murray*and *Mr. John L. Moore*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Lordi*and *Mr. Barry H. Evenchiclc*for the respondent.

March 12, 1968.

Denied.
Before the First Division,

March 8, 1951

No. 55318.

#### Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 142230-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carbon cutters the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 54329, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EUGENE RAINES, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Peter Murray*and *Mr. Carl R. Boiler*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Lordi*and *Mr. Alan BiTber*for the respondent.

May 28, 1968.

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

______________________________________________________________________________

MIRIAM PENADO, on behalf of Herself and 

A.A.H., born 2018, and A.M.H., born 2020,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

DANIEL HUNTER,

 Respondent and Appellee.

Cause No. DA-23-0692

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Appellant shall have until 

June 10, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 30 2024

05/30/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0692
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8242 

To establish that an individual who is convicted of any offense under any 

Federal or State law related to the individual’s conduct at and during 

the course of a protest that occurs at an institution of higher education 

shall be ineligible for forgiveness, cancellation, waiver, or modification 

of certain Federal student loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. WILLIAMS of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To establish that an individual who is convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law related to the 

individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest 

that occurs at an institution of higher education shall 

be ineligible for forgiveness, cancellation, waiver, or modification of certain Federal student loans. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8242 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Bailouts for Cam3 pus Criminals Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CER5 TAIN INDIVIDUALS. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, an individual described in para9 graph (2) shall not be eligible to have any covered 

10 loan, or a portion of such loan, forgiven, cancelled, 

11 waived, or modified under the Higher Education Act 

12 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) or under any other 

13 Executive Order or action of the Department of 

14 Education. 

15 (2) AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL.—An individual de16 scribed in this paragraph is an individual who is 

17 convicted of any offense under any Federal or State 

18 law related to the individual’s conduct at and during 

19 the course of a protest that occurs at an institution 

20 of higher education. 

21 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 (1) COVERED LOAN.—The term ‘‘covered loan’’ 

23 means— 

24 (A) a loan made, insured, or guaranteed 

25 under part B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher 

26 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8242 IH

1 1087a et seq.; 1087aa et seq.) before, on, or 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act; or 

3 (B) a loan under the Health Education As4 sistance Loan Program under title VII of the 

5 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et 

6 seq.) made before, on, or after the date of en7 actment of this Act. 

8 (2) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The 

9 term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the 

10 meaning given that term in section 102 of the High11 er Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.11

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
the Frontier Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, to the best of his 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 Frontier Dynamic Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                                    
|Robert J. Enck President
and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                                      
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                       
|Brent Bales Chief Financial
Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                 

Date: May 12, 2011
Before the Second Division,

November 30, 1960

No. 64929.

#### West Point Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 297676-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal ball bearings, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                   |  |                        |  |                                              
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Name                               |  | State of Incorporation |  | Name Under Which SuchSubsidiary Does Business
|Frontier Trading Company I LLC     |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company II LLC    |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company III LLC   |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company V LLC     |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company VI LLC    |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company VII, LLC  |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company VIII, LLC |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company IX, LLC   |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company X, LLC    |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company XI, LLC   |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company XII, LLC  |  | Delaware               |  | Same                                         
|                                   |  |                       
|Frontier Trading Company XIII, LLC |  | Delaware               |  | Same
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton 

RICKEY ALVIN TUCKER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0031-06-2 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 9, 2006 

BLUE & GRAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LLC AND 

 NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Jamie L. Karek; Geoffrey R. McDonald & Associates, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (R. Ferrell Newman; Thompson, Smithers, Newman & Wright, on 

brief), for appellees. 

 Rickey Alvin Tucker appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding he failed to meet his burden of proving that he was an employee of Blue & Gray 

Transportation Company, LLC at the time of his accident on August 30, 2004. The commission 

ruled he was an independent contractor. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion, and we hold that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s 

decision for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Tucker v. Blue & 

Gray Transportation Company, LLC, VWC File No. 220-71-37 (Dec. 7, 2005). We dispense 

with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
<page>

											 EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Currency L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jeffrey A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation,
the general partner of the Partnership, 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:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 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 Partner-
ship.






By:	/s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:		President

Date:		March 15, 2004
Before the Second Division,

July 27, 1942

No. 47419.

#### Protests 862535-G, etc., of Edgar Allen Steel Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6045

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JIMMY R. DEAN, a/k/a Jimmy Richard Dean , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00479

- CMC

- 1; 3:17

- cv - 01908

- CMC )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jimmy R. Dean, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., A ssistant United States Attorney , James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy R. Dean seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration . The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial sho wing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dean has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisi onal process.
DISMISSED
No. 48579.

#### Protests 68113-K, etc., of Lien Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the established facts and following *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained as to certain of the items.
```

[House Report 108-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                      108-7

======================================================================

 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 18, MAKING 
       FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                _______
                                

  February 4, 2003.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 48]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 48, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 18, making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, under a closed rule. 
The rule provides one hour of debate in the House equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion 
to recommit.
    The waiver of all points of order against consideration of 
the joint resolution includes a waiver of Section 302(c) of the 
Congressional Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of a 
committee's legislation providing new budget authority until 
that committee has filed its 302(b) report). Although the 
continuing resolution abides by the 302(b) allocations for 
fiscal year 2003, the waiver of Section 302(c) is technically 
necessary because the Appropriations Committee has not yet 
organized and 302(b) reports have not yet been filed in the 
108th Congress.

                                

```