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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2853 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2853

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary 
  of Labor to conduct a study and issue a report on grant programs to 
                     support the nursing workforce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 19, 2023

  Ms. Rosen (for herself, Mr. Braun, and Ms. Collins) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary 
  of Labor to conduct a study and issue a report on grant programs to 
                     support the nursing workforce.

    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 ``Train More Nurses Act''.

SEC. 2. REVIEW OF AND REPORT ON PROGRAMS SUPPORTING THE NURSING 
              WORKFORCE.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of 
Labor, jointly, shall--
            (1) conduct a review of all grant programs carried out by 
        the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department 
        of Labor that support the nurse workforce; and
            (2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, submit to Congress a report on the review under 
        paragraph (1) that includes recommendations for changes to such 
        grant programs to improve upon the goals of--
                    (A) increasing nurse faculty, particularly in 
                underserved areas;
                    (B) providing pathways for nurses who have more 
                than 10 years of clinical experience to become faculty 
                at schools of nursing; and
                    (C) encouraging and increasing the nursing pipeline 
                through pathways for licensed practical nurses to 
                become registered nurses.
                                 <all>
```
1

EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V

Submittal Date May 13, 2014

District Name Placer 

Date Reviewed July 3,2014

EPA Reviewer Arnold Lazarus

Key:

C = Complete

I = Incomplete

N/A = Not Applicable To Rule

O = Material Missing

N/S = None Submitted

 

RULE #: 247 249 502

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1)

(a) Submittal letter from Governor/designee C C C

(b) Evidence of adoption C C C

(c) State/District legal authority to adopt C C C

(d1) Copy of actual rule/plan C C C

(d2) Rule changes indicated by underline/cross-out C N/A C

(e) Proof that action met procedural requirements C C C

(f) Copy of public notice C C C

(g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice C C C

(h) Public comments & agency response N/S N/S N/S

 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

(a) Regulated pollutants identified C C C

(b) Affected sources & attainment status identified C C N/A

(c) Rule/plan emissions impact C C N/A

(d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration N/A N/A N/A

(e) Modeling support as appropriate N/A N/A N/A

(f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions C C N/A

(g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements C C N/A

(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies C C N/A

(i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy N/A N/A N/A

OVERALL COMPLETENESS C C C
---

Exhibit 32





In connection with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard Ransom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge and belief:





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





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








/s/ Kelvin Claney


Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Richard Ransom


Richard Ransom, Chief Financial Officer





Date: August 11, 2010
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Appellant

v.

NVIDIA CORPORATION, SEMICONDUCTOR
COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC, DBA ON SEMICONDUCTOR, Appellees

______________________

2022

- 1112, 2022

- 1113

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2020

- 00602, IPR2020

- 00603.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R ICHARD L. R AINEY

, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by

T AREK A USTIN ; N ITIN S UBHEDAR , San Francisco, CA.

S TANLEY J OSEPH P ANIKO WSKI

, III, DLA Piper US LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for appellee NVIDIA Corporation. Also represented by C LAYTON W. T HOMPSON

, II, Y AKOV Z OLOTOREV , East Palo Alto, CA. Case: 22-1112 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2023M ICHAEL H AWES , Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, for appellee Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC. Also represented by R OGER F ULGHUM ; B RETT J. T HOMPSEN

, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Austin, TX.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been he ard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, S CHALL

, and T ARANTO

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 22, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 22-1112 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2023
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NITTANY NOVA AGGREGATES, LLC, : Case No. 4:16-CV-00120

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

WM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC and :

WM CAPITAL PARTNERS, XXXIX, LLC,:

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

October 26, 2016

AND NOW, in accordance with a Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 4) is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to 

Plaintiff’s conspiracy (Count I), fraudulent misrepresentation/inducement 

(Count II), and negligent misrepresentation/inducement (Count III) claims.

3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is similarly GRANTED with respect 

to Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.

Case 4:16-cv-00120-MWB Document 19 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 2
2

4. Plaintiff is, however, given leave to file an Amended Complaint 

within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order re-asserting the 

dismissed tort claims. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

 United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00120-MWB Document 19 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

881 KA 10-00802 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
CHARLES N. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered December 15, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree (two counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed ( see People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 8
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 8
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 8
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 8
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 8
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 8
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 8
Case 05-39972-MBM Doc 63 Filed 09/29/06 Entered 10/02/06 14:50:25 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT
32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification







Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Smooth Global (China)
Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that:




1.           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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









May
      19, 2008
            /s/ Zheng
      ShuyingZheng
      Shuying, Chief Executive Officerand
      Chief Financial Officer










*       *       *       *       *


---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DON MILTON STEELE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-3196 

(D.C. Nos. 2:14-CV-02512-JWL & 

2:10-CR-20037-JWL-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, O’BRIEN, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Don Milton Steele, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s order construing his “Petition for Relief 

from a Judgement or Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) and or 60(d)(3) ‘Savings Clause’ or 

Rule 60(b)(6) with request for Equitable Tolling” as an unauthorized second or 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. We deny 

a COA and dismiss this matter. 

Steele was convicted in 2012 of counterfeiting and drug-related offenses, as well 

as possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 22, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. United 

States v. Dyke, 718 F.3d 1282, 1292, 1294 (10th Cir. 2013). Steele filed a first § 2255 

motion in 2014. The district court denied relief and this court denied a COA. In 2018, 

Steele filed his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court dismissed 

the petition as second or successive and Steele filed a notice of appeal.1

 

To appeal, Steele must obtain a COA. See § 2253(c)(1)(B). To obtain a COA, 

“a prisoner [must] show[], at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

In Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2006), we held that a Rule 60 

motion that “in substance or effect asserts or reasserts a federal basis for relief from the 

petitioner’s underlying conviction” is second or successive. Steele fails to explain why 

the court’s determination that the Rule 60 motion was second or successive was wrong. 

We deny a COA and dismiss this appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

 1

 Shortly after the district court dismissed Steele’s Rule 60 motion, he filed a 

motion for authorization in this court in which he argued that he should be permitted 

to bring the same claims he sought to raise in Rule 60 motion in a new § 2255 

proceeding. This court denied the motion.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 2]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ2.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 45]]

Public Law 104-2
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend section 61h-6 of title 2, United States Code. <<NOTE: Feb. 9, 
                           1995 -  [S. 273]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 61h-6 of 
title 2; The Congress, Chapter 4--Officers and Employees of Senate and 
House of Representatives; United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:

``Sec. 61h-6. Appointment of consultants by Majority Leader, Minority 
                        Leader, Secretary of the Senate, and Legislative 
                        Counsel of the Senate; compensation

    ``(a) The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, are each 
authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of not more than four 
individual consultants, on a temporary or intermittent basis, at a daily 
rate of compensation not in excess of the per diem equivalent of the 
highest gross rate of annual compensation which may be paid to employees 
of a standing committee of the Senate. The Secretary of the Senate is 
authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of not more than two 
individual consultants, on a temporary or intermittent basis, at a daily 
rate of compensation not in excess of the per diem equivalent of the 
highest gross rate of annual compensation which may be paid to employees 
of a standing committee of the Senate. The Legislative Counsel of the 
Senate (subject to the approval of the President pro tempore) is 
authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of not more than two 
consultants, on a temporary or intermittent basis, at a daily rate of 
compensation not in excess of that specified in the first sentence of 
this section. The provisions of section 8344 of title 5 shall not apply 
to any individual serving in a position under this authority. 
Expenditures under this authority shall be paid from the contingent fund 
of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the President pro tempore, 
Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Secretary of the Senate, or 
Legislative Counsel of the Senate, as the case may be.

[[Page 109 STAT. 46]]

    ``(b) The Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, in appointing 
individuals to consultant positions under authority of this section, may 
appoint one such individual to such position at an annual rate of 
compensation rather than at a daily rate of compensation, but such 
annual rate shall not be in excess of the highest gross rate of annual 
compensation which may be paid to employees of a standing committee of 
the Senate.''.

    Approved February 9, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 273:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Jan. 24, considered and passed Senate.
            Jan. 27, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Hooker Furniture Corporation (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paul B. Toms, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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: July 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul B. Toms, Jr.               
|                    |  |     |  | Paul B. Toms, Jr.                   
|                    |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00472-CR

Jeffrey Sheldon Barnard, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2012-512, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Sheldon Barnard has appealed his convictions for sexual assault of a child

and indecency with a child by contact. Appellant’s brief was originally due December 31, 2014. 

The time for filing the brief was extended on appellant’s counsel’s successive motions to

February 17, 2015; March 19, 2015; and April 20, 2015. On April 24, 2015, in granting a fourth

extension, the Court ordered appellant’s attorney, Andrea C. Polunsky, to file a brief on appellant’s

behalf no later than May 20, 2015. This Court cautioned that no further extension of time would be

granted and that failure to comply with the order would result in referral of this case to the trial court

for a hearing. Counsel did not file a brief as ordered.

The appeal is abated. The trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, whether counsel has abandoned the appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). The trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations. 
If necessary, the trial court shall appoint substitute counsel who will effectivelyrepresent appellant in

this cause. A record from this hearing, including copies of all findings and orders and a transcription

of the court reporter’s notes, shall be forwarded to the Clerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental

record no later than July 13, 2015. Rule 38.8(b)(3).

It is ordered on June 10, 2015.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Abated and Remanded

Filed: June 10, 2015

Do Not Publish

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1998              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,243                  24,243
<SECURITIES>                                     2,953                   2,953
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,885                   7,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                       261                     261
<INVENTORY>                                      5,476                   5,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,213                  41,213
<PP&E>                                          12,748                  12,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,605                   7,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,809                  47,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,450                   7,450
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            15                      15
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,339                  40,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,804                  47,804
<SALES>                                         13,692                  44,169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,692                  44,169
<CGS>                                            5,026                  16,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,313                  22,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,621                   6,287
<INCOME-TAX>                                       120                     284
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,501                   6,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,501                   6,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.17                   $0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.16                   $0.40
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1.1

GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Geoffrey F.
Cox, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                             
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|April 25, 2008 |  | /s/ Geoffrey F. Cox                                         
|               |  | Geoffrey F. Cox                                             
|               |  | Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer