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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7901 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7901

    To require the Administrator for General Services to obtain an 
  antivirus product to make available to Federal agencies in order to 
   provide the product to individuals whose personally identifiable 
                 information may have been compromised.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2020

Mr. Cartwright introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Administrator for General Services to obtain an 
  antivirus product to make available to Federal agencies in order to 
   provide the product to individuals whose personally identifiable 
                 information may have been compromised.

    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 ``A Necessary and Targeted Impediment 
to Viruses Act'' or the ``ANTI Viruses Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVISION OF ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE TO CERTAIN 
              INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY DATA BREACH.

    (a) Requirement To Procure Antivirus Product.--
            (1) In general.--The Administrator for General Services 
        shall procure an antivirus product suitable for Federal 
        agencies to provide to individuals whose personally 
        identifiable information may have been compromised.
            (2) Deadline.--As soon as practicable after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a 
        solicitation for vendors to provide the antivirus product 
        described in paragraph (1). Not later than 1 year after such 
        date, the Administrator shall award the contract for the 
        product.
    (b) Requirement To Provide One-Year License for Use of Antivirus 
Product.--A Federal agency that experiences a compromise in its 
computer systems resulting in the loss of personally identifiable 
information shall provide to any individual directly affected a one-
year license of the antivirus product procured under subsection (a).
    (c) Federal Agency.--In this section, the term ``Federal agency'' 
has the meaning provided the term ``Executive agency'' in section 105 
of title 5, United States Code, and also includes the United States 
Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission.
    (d) Source of Funds.--The funds used by a Federal agency to carry 
out this Act shall be derived from amounts made available to the agency 
for operating expenses.
                                 <all>
```
No. 00-616.

#### Manning *v.*McGraw-Hill, Inc.

C; A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Swanson, Brian (OST)
From: Sent: To: Subject: Gentlemen, Kathy Wilke <wilkat.1651@gmail.com> Sunday, August OS, 2012 5:40 PM Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) Rhinelander Airport ·service

... 

### ····· b

I wish to extend my wish that SkyWestbeoffered a contract to supply service to the RhinelanderWisconsin Airport. Currently, I am unable to utilize the Frontier line because it does not service the major airports where I can get connecting flights. 

### It is a shame to have such a fine airport,just30 miles from our home, not have a service that meets the needs ofits' community. Bybringing in the SkyWest line and ajet service to Minneapolis, I would be able · to try to book myweekly flights from our horne airport. Please consider the people ofthe Lakeland area and the convenience ofhaving ajet air service supply our community. Regards, Kathy Wilke 11452 Lemma Creek Rd Arbor Vitae, WI 54568 (715)**614~4046** 

### Kathy:) (

1
Filed 4/1/15 P. v. Suero CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

KYLE CHRISTIAN SUERO, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B255383 

(Super. Ct. No. 2013030157) 

(Ventura County) 

 Kyle Christian Suero appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted 

him of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. 

(a)(4))1 with special findings that he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, 

subd. (a)). Appellant admitted suffering a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. 

(a)(1)) and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (c)(1) & (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (a)(1) & 

(c)(1), and was sentenced to 14 years state prison. The trial court ordered appellant to pay a 

$300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a 

$1,503.22 restitution claim, victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $40 court security fee 

(§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s 

examination of the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. 

 

1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2

 On January 20, 2015, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which 

to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has 

been received. 

 The record reflects that appellant punched and kicked Alexander Birgel 

outside a Newbury Park bar after Birgel was knocked out by another person. Birgel was 

hospitalized for multiple lacerations and contusions, soft tissue hematoma, abrasions to the 

head and face, a deep oral laceration, and a deviated septum. 

 We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney 

has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 YEGAN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P.J. 

 PERREN, J. 
3

James P. Cloninger, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 Shea S. Murphy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Respondent.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 8, 2009 *

Decided December 10, 2009



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

R ICHARD D. C UDAHY
, Circuit Judge

I LANA D IAMOND R OVNER

, Circuit Ju dge

No. 09

- 2494

A GWU N WOKE

, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v

.

V ILLAGE OF B OLINGBROOK

, I LLINOIS

, Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 09 C 2764 Charles P. Kocoras, Judge

.

Order

After receiving a ticket for running a red light, Agwu Nwoke filed this suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983. He accuses the Village of Bolingbrook of malicious pros ecution on the theory that its police force issues tickets to raise revenue rather than to enforce the traffic laws.

The district court dismissed the suit in a curt order that does not provide reasons, and thus violates Circuit Rule 50. The suit may have been dismissed for failure to pros ecute (Nwoke failed to appear at a schedul ed hearing) or on the merits; if the latter, the district court’s reasons for thinking the complaint defe c tive were not stated. But there would be no point to a remand, because the complaint is i n curably deficient. There is no federal

- law claim for malicio us prosecution, if state law provides remedies for that tort (as Illinois does). See Newsome v. McCabe , 256 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2001) . Other pote n tial problems with Nwoke’s theory need not be explored.

A FFIRMED

* After examining the briefs and the record, w e have concluded that oral argument is unnece s sary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
Office of the Secretary

March 20, 2015

Carla Hine, Esq.

McDermott Will & Emery

The McDermott Building

500 North Capitol Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Consummated Acquisition of Griffin Pipe Products Co. by U.S. Pipe and Foundry 

Co., LLC, File No. 141 0090

Dear Ms. Hine:

The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has been conducting a 

nonpublic investigation to determine whether the consummated acquisition of Griffin Pipe 

Products Co. by U.S. Pipe Holdings, Inc., is in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, as amended; to determine whether the aforesaid acquisition is 

in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, as amended, or Section 5 of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, as amended; and to determine whether the 

requirements of Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, have been or will be fulfilled 

with respect to said transaction.

Upon further review of this matter, it now appears that no further action is warranted by 

the Commission at this time. Accordingly, the investigation has been closed. This action is not 

to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred, just as the pendency of 

an investigation should not be construed as a determination that a violation has occurred. The 

Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax 

www.airquality.org 

May 10, 2012 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, Negative Declaration for CTG for Fiberglass 

Boat Manufacturing Materials (U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-08-004, 

September 2008) 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of a revision to the State Implementation 

Plan. On March 22, 2012, the SMAQMD Board of Directors adopted a negative declaration, 

finding that there are no District sources to which the following Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG) document applies: 

Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. U.S. EPA 

Publication No. EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008. 

Clean Air Act Section 182(b)(2)(A) requires states/districts to revise their SIPs to include RACT 

for sources of VOC emissions for each category of VOC sources covered by all CTG 

documents issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area’s date of attainment. This 

negative declaration is being submitted in lieu of a RACT rule. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102, a notice was prominently displayed on the District’s web site, 

providing a 30-day period for the public to request a public hearing. The notice procedure is 

consistent with the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation Memo to Regional Administrators, 

“Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan 

Submittals and the Use of ‘Letter Notices’,” April 6, 2011. No request for a hearing was 

received during the 30-day period. Therefore, the public hearing was cancelled and the 

negative declaration was adopted. 

Please forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. If you have any comments or 

questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

(sent via e-mail) 

Attachments: 
Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

May 10, 2012 

Page 2 

1. SIP Checklist 

2. Negative Declaration for the Fiberglass Boat Materials CTG 

3. Public Notice Evidence 

4. Resolution 

5. Rule Evaluation Form 

6. Staff Report
Exhibit 23


                   CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP








The Board of Directors
Lunar Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
on Form S-8 (File No. 33-63891) of Lunar Corporation of our reports
dated August 2, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Lunar Corporation and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and
the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule for each
of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 1997, which
reports appear in the June 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of
Lunar Corporation.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Chicago, Illinois
September 24, 1997
#### LITTLE RIVER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. STATE FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 70-1062.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1 

### Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:42 PM

To: roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov; Richard Ta kaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov)

Cc: stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; st even.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; Li nder, Steven; Pallarino,

Bob; Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCP H C700; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC

HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC H I, EV4; Tsutsui, Bruc e O CIV NAVFAC HI,

OPHE3; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - February 17, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of February 17, 2015. In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be

annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan

Action complete.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1

‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

Action complete.

b. Action 2

‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP

‐ 8 free product is unknown. Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration. This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination. Prepare models for petroleum JP

‐ 8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.

No change.

c. Action 3

‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP

‐ 8 free product. Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.

No change.

d. Action 4

‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex. This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.

d.(1) Groundwater Monitoring Wells

No change.

d.(2) Site Characterization2 No change.

d.(3) AOC/SOW

Discussions are ongoing.

d.(4) Request for Additional Information

No change.

d.(5) BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study

USGS Groundwater Study

‐ received outline of USGS proposed actions for coordination purposes.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

v/r,

Aaron
259 La. 803

#### A. J. TOUPS COMPANY, Inc. v. DIXIE BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY, Inc.

No. 51668.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 1971.

In re: Dixie Building Material Company, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 250 So.2d 111.

Writ refused. The judgment is not final.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60200

Summary Calendar

ANA INEZ GUTIERREZ-GARCIA

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A29-966-728

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ana Inez Gutierrez-Garcia is a native and citizen of Guatemala. She

petitions, pro se, for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)

affirmance ofthe immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen removal

proceedings, and denial of her motion for a remand. While questions of law are

reviewed de novo, we “accord deference to the BIA’s interpretation of

immigration statutes unless the record reveals compelling evidence that the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 26, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60200

2

BIA’s interpretation is incorrect”. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.

1997) (citing Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1991)). The BIA’s

affirmance of an IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435

F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006). Motions to reopen deportation proceedings are

disfavored, and the moving party bears a heavy burden. Id.

Gutierrez was required to file a motion to reopen within 180 days of the

in absentia deportation order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). That order was

dated 24 April 1990. Gutierrez did not file her motion to reopen the proceedings

until 9 July 2004, 14 years later. Additionally, as this is her second motion to

reopen, it was improvidently filed, given that she was entitled to file only one

motion to reopen. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (c)(7)(C)(iii). Thus, the BIA’s affirmance

of the IJ’s denial of Gutierrez’ motion to reopen, based on her delay in seeking

such relief, was not an abuse of discretion. See Altamirano-Lopez, 435 F.3d at

549. 

BIA regulations do not specifically authorize motions to remand.

Nevertheless, as noted supra, we review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand

for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 600 (5th

Cir. 1993). The BIA must deny a motion to remand if it finds the movant has not

introduced previously unavailable, material evidence, or if the movant has not

established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought. Id.

at 599-600. Because, as discussed above, Gutierrez has not established a prima

facie case for reopening the removal proceedings, the BIA did not abuse its

discretion when it denied her motion for a remand. See id.

DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Douglas W. Sabra, Chief Executive Officer of ForwardIndustries, Inc. (”Forward”), and James O. McKenna, Chief Financial Officer, doeach certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 that, to the best of their knowledge:
    -  Forward’squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
    -  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Forward.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 6th day of May 2009. 

 

/s/ Douglas W. Sabra

Douglas W. Sabra

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

 

/s/ James O. McKenna

James O. McKenna

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,079,797
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          40,046
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                98,359
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     14,635,340
<ALLOWANCE>                                    257,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,565,149
<DEPOSITS>                                  16,819,570
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,622,170
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            350,589
<LONG-TERM>                                    966,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       881,402
<OTHER-SE>                                     924,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              21,565,149
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                650,494
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              143,012
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 4,762
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               798,268
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             286,797
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              72,002
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          439,469
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   41,232
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,216)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                406,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,967
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     152,579
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152,579
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.66
<LOANS-NON>                                     86,174
<LOANS-PAST>                                    24,034
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,323
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 26,939
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               252,846
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   64,789
<RECOVERIES>                                    28,864
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              257,953
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           257,953
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board
of Directors


Cyberonics,
Inc.:




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-125401, 333-108281, 333-56694 and 333-66691) on Forms S-8 of Cyberonics,
Inc. of our reports dated June 18, 2009, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of Cyberonics, Inc. as of April 24, 2009 and April 25, 2008, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity
(deficit) and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the 52 weeks ended
April 24, 2009, April 25, 2008, and April 27, 2007, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of April 24, 2009, which reports
appear in the April 24, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Cyberonics,
Inc.







/s/
      KPMG LLP


Houston,
Texas


June 18,
2009