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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7311 

To prohibit the use of funds to purchase drones manufactured in the People’s 

Republic of China or by Chinese state-controlled entities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2020 

Mr. GAETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds to purchase drones manufactured in the People’s Republic of China or by Chinese 

state-controlled entities. 

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 ‘‘Securing Our Skies 

5 Against Chinese Technology Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7311 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE 

2 DRONES MANUFACTURED IN THE PEOPLE’S 

3 REPUBLIC OF CHINA OR BY CHINESE STATE4 CONTROLLED ENTITIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds appropriated or other6 wise made available for fiscal year 2020 and available for 

7 obligation as of the date of the enactment of this Act, and 

8 no funds appropriated or otherwise made available for fis9 cal year 2021 or any fiscal year thereafter, may be obli10 gated or expended to purchase a drone described in sub11 section (b). 

12 (b) DRONES DESCRIBED.—A drone described in this 

13 subsection is a drone manufactured in the People’s Repub14 lic of China or by an entity owned or controlled by the 

15 Government of the People’s Republic of China. 

16 (c) APPLICATION TO PRIVATE ENTITIES AND STATE

17 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—The prohibition under sub19 section (a) includes a prohibition on the obligation 

20 or expenditure of funds described in that subsection 

21 for the purchase of a drone described in subsection 

22 (b) by a private entity or a State or local govern23 ment (including a law enforcement agency) that re24 ceived such funds through a grant or any other 

25 means. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7311 IH

1 (2) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED TO RECEIVE FU2 TURE FUNDS.—On and after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act, the head of an executive agency 

4 may not provide funds described in subsection (a) to 

5 a private entity or a State or local government un6 less the entity or government certifies that the entity 

7 or government, as the case may be, is not using 

8 drones described in subsection (b). 

9 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

10 (1) DRONE.—The term ‘‘drone’’ has the mean11 ing given the term ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ in section 

12 44801 of title 49, United States Code. 

13 (2) EXECUTIVE AGENCY.—The term ‘‘executive 

14 agency’’ has the meaning given that term in section 

15 133 of title 41, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
O'Charley's Inc.:

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 33-39872, No. 33-51316, No. 33-51258, No. 33-83172, No.
33-69934, No. 333-63495, No. 333-59484, No. 333-126221 and No. 333-129783 on
Form S-8) of O'Charley's Inc. of our reports dated March 9, 2006, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of O'Charley's Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 25, 2005 and December 26, 2004, and the related consolidated statements
of earnings, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 25, 2005 and the
related financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 25,
2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 25, 2005, which reports appear in the December 25, 2005 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of O'Charley's Inc.

      Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to a change in
accounting for certain asset retirement obligations in 2005.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
March 9, 2006
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00250-CR

Linzy Eugene THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

The State of TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-7700W

Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Appellant Linzy Eugene Thomas was charged by information with the felony offense of

possession of a controlled substance. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Thomas entered a plea of nolo

contendere to the offense charged in the information. The trial court followed the plea agreement

and assessed punishment at two years confinement; however, the court suspended the execution of

the sentence and placed Thomas on community supervision for a period of two years. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Thomas’s community supervision. After Thomas pled true
04-08-00250-CR

-2-

to violating a condition of his community supervision, the trial court revoked Thomas’s community

supervision and assessed punishment at two years confinement. The trial court certified Thomas’s

right to appeal, and a timely notice of appeal was filed. 

Thomas’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief in which he concludes that this

appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that Thomas was provided with a copy of

the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file

his own brief. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 178 n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no

writ). Thomas did not file a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to

withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ);

Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 178 n. 1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Thomas wish to

seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Thomas must either retain

an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the date of this

opinion or the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be

forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for

discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Karen Angelini, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                         135,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,742
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,371
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 785,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          408,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,250
<OTHER-SE>                                     367,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   785,371
<SALES>                                         14,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,580
<CGS>                                               82
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  246,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (246,505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (246,505)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (246,505)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
STATEOFDELAWAREDEPARTMENTOFNAmRRESOURCES&ENvIRONMENTALCONTROLDIVISIONOFAIRANDWASTEMANAGEMENT655S.BayRoad.Suite5NAIROuuTvMANAGEMENTDOVER,DELAWARE19901Telephone:(302)739-9402SECTIONFaxNo.:(302)739-3106July19,2010Mr.ShawnM.Garvin(RA000)RegionalAdministratorUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia.PA19103-2029DearMr.Garvin:InApril2009,severalweather-relatedproblemscausedextensivedown-timeattheBrandywineairmonitoringstation(AQSID10-003-1010)duringthespringandfallof2009.Thetotalvaliddatacaptureforthe2009ozoneseasonatBrandywinewas53%.Section2.3(b)ofAppendixIto40CFRPart50requiresthreeconsecutiveyearsofdatawithdataavailabilityofatleast90%onaverage,withaminimumdatacompletenessinanyoneyearofatleast75%.Furthermore,thissectionalsostates:“...Whencomputingwhethertheminimumdatacompletenessrequirementshavebeenmet,meteorologicalorambientdatamaybesufficienttodemonstratethatmeteorologicalconditionsonmissingdayswerenotconducivetoconcentrationsabovethelevelofthestandard.Missingdaysassumedlessthanthelevelofthestandardarecountedforthepurposeofmeetingthedatacompletenessrequirement,subjecttotheapprovaloftheappropriateRegionalAdministrator”TheDelawareDNRECDivisionofAirQuality(DAQ)hasanalyzedthemeteorologicalandambientmonitoringdataforthe2009ozoneseasonanddeterminedthattheuseofthenulldatacode,“HG”,forthefollowing57daysisappropriate:DELAWARE’SGOODNATUREDEPENDSONYOU!PnntedonMr.ShawnGarvinJuly19,2010PageTwoSincerely,DatesDayCount4/1/09—4/17/09174/19109—4/24/0964/29/09—5/7/0995/10/09—5/13/0946/11/0919/10/09110/2/09—10/8/09710/10/09—10/20/091110/22/091TOTAL57DAQissubmittingtheattacheddatasubstitutionrequestfor57dayslistedabove.Theincorporationofthe‘BG”datacodefortheBrandywinedataresultsinadatacapturepercentageof79%for2009,whichmeetstherequirementsof40CFRPart50AppendixI,Section2.3(b).DAQhasdiscussedthisprocessanddatareviewwithAndrewHassofEPARegionIII.ThedatasubstitutionanalysisandrawdataonCDareattached.Arevised2009DelawareDataCertificationpackagefortheupdatedozonedatawillalsobesubmittedtoEPARegionIII.PleasefeelfreetocontactBetsyFrey,(302)323-4542,ifyouhaveanyquestions.Directorcc:AimeeHowell,EPA,RegionIIIWalterWilkie,EPARegionIIIAndrewHaas,EPARegionUIPaulineDevose,EPARegionIIIDavidLutz,DataCertificationContact,EPA(MailCodeC304-06)RonAmirikian,DAQBetsyFrey,DAQJoeMartini,DAQEnclosure
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
O'Charley's Inc:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-39872, No. 33-51316, No. 33-51258, No. 33-83172, No. 33-69934, No. 333-63495,
and No. 333-59484 on Form S-8) of O'Charley's Inc. of our report dated February
11, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of O'Charley's Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 28, 2003 and December 29, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 28, 2003, which report appears in the December 28, 2003 annual report
on Form 10-K of O'Charley's Inc. Our report refers to a change in method of
accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets in 2002.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
March 12, 2004
No. D-2208.

#### In re Disbarment of Friedman.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see *ante,*p. 976.]
#### Zelma HARRIS, Appellant, v. Mildred BLAKELY, Appellee.

No. R-159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Charles B. ELLINGTON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-720.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 10, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.
***Exhibit 32.2******Certification of Principal Accounting Officer (1)***Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,the following certification is being made to accompany the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2006:In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Koch, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.           /s/Mark A. Zorko   Name:  Mark A. Zorko    Chief Financial OfficerDate: December 8, 2006  (1) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Del Global Technologies Corp and will be retained by Del Global Technologies Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Donald COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1070.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 30, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1973.

As Modified on Rehearing Jan. 16, 1973.

Robert T. Adams, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged in two counts of having, during the month of September, 1971, unlawfully delivered to another a quantity of marijuana in violation of Section 404.02, F.S.1971, F.S.A. Upon jury trial, appellant was found guilty on each count, and was thereupon adjudged guilty and sentenced to two years in the state prison on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.

Of the several points raised by appellant, all are without merit except the one relating to being sentenced for a felony. The information failed to allege either (1) that the defendant had been previously convicted of a violation of the Drug Abuse Law, or (2) that the delivery was for a consideration, or (3) the amount of marijuana delivered exceeded five grams. At least one of these allegations would *157necessarily have to 'be contained in the information in order to constitute the crime a felony under Section 404.15, F.S. 1971, F.S.A. The Second District Court of Appeal has expressed a similar view in two recent decisions. See Pope v. State, Fla.App., 268 So.2d 173, Opinion filed September 27, 1972, and Carr v. State, Fla.App., 267 So.2d 684, Opinion filed October 6, 1972.

The judgment of guilt on each count is affirmed. The sentence on each count is vacated and set aside and this cause is remanded with instructions that appellant be sentenced on each count for a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., and WHITE, JOS. S., Associate Judge, concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We have granted appellee’s petition for re-hearing as to that portion of our opinion filed November 30, 1972 which erroneously directed the trial court to sentence appellant on each count *for a misdemeanor of the first degree.*The offenses having occurred prior to January 1, 1972 (the effective date of Chapter 71-136, Laws of 1971), appellant is subject to punishment under F.S. Section 404.15(1), F.S.A. as amended by Section 2 of Chapter 71-107, Laws of 1971. This provides for “imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding one (1) year or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)”. The opinion is modified accordingly, and on remand the trial court shall impose appropriate sentence on each count within these limitations, rather than for a misdemeanor of the first degree as directed in our original opinion.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., and WHITE, JOS. S., Associate Judge, concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7167 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to add a pandemic as a potential cause of a fishery resource disaster. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2020 

Mr. GOLDEN (for himself and Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to add a pandemic as a potential cause 

of a fishery resource disaster. 

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 TITTLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pandemic Fishery Dis5 aster Response Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES. 

7 Section 312(a)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

8 Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

9 1861a(a)(1)) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7167 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘;’’; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ‘‘.’’ and in4 serting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) a pandemic, as such term is defined by 

7 the Secretary of Health and Human Services.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
March 4, 2005

David Pender

Federal Trade Commission
Bureau of Competition

Health Care Services and Products
601 New Jersey Avenue
Washington DC, 20001

Dear David Pender,

1 am requesting an advisory opinion relating to the applicability of the Non-Profit Institutions Act (NPLA) to
sales of pharmaceuticals by Stevens Hospital (Stevens Healthcare) to patients who are under the care of clinic
physicians whose practices are owned by Stevens Hospital.

Public Health District No. 2, doing business as Stevens Healthcare is a 217 licensed bed facility with an acute
care inpatient pharmacy located in the hospital and a outpatient/retail pharmacy — Hadfields, owned by the
district. Our patients come from inside and outside the district and belong to a variety of health plans. Stevens
Healthcare is not a HMO or PPO. The public health district also owns four physician practices. The physicians
are employed by Stevens Healthcare as well as the staff. All medical services are billed under the Stevens tax
ID number, Clinics and staff are covered under the Districts general liability policy. All human resource,
payroll, accounts payable, information systems and accounting functions are performed by Stevens
departments. Clinic employees are covered under Stevens medical and dental benefit plans.

Stevens Hospital Pharmacy purchases pharmaceuticals from Cardinal, our drug wholesaler at acute care pricing.
Currently these pharmaceuticals are used for our hospitalized patients for inpatient needs as well as periodic
discharge prescriptions. We also provide for a very busy Emergency Department and outpatient surgical
program, also with some discharge prescription activity. We provide pharmaceutical supplies for the clinics we
own for in-clinic treatment. Our employees may fill prescriptions at our outpatient/retail pharmacy for
themselves and dependents.

Stevens Healthcare is proposing an expansion of the use of our acute care pricing. Stevens Healthcare would
iike to access pharmaceuticals at acure care pricing for prescription and non prescription dispensing to patients
who receive care from out clinic physicians. This would include initial prescriptions written in the hospital at
discharge, Emergency Department prescriptions, Clinic prescriptions as well as refills as appropriate.

Please advise. Feel free to contact me if you need clarification or additional information. I can be reached at
425-640-4181.

Respectfully yours,

Dba

tdon J Oakes
Director of Pharmacy

21601 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425) 640-4000
www.stevenshealthcare.org
#### Louis BABINEAUX v. Michael J. LEBLANC and Commercial Union Insurance Co.

No. 61061.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Louis Babineaux applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 351 So.2d 317.

Writ denied.