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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3851 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3851

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
                                penalty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1994

 Mr. Istook (for himself, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Dornan, Mr. 
 Calvert, Mr. Pete Geren of Texas, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Livingston, Mr. 
   Goss, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. 
  Petri, Mr. Allard, Mr. Machtley, and Mr. Hutchinson) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
                                penalty.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That (a) part I of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
section:

``SEC. 69. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no husband and wife 
shall be required to pay more in income taxes under this subtitle 
because of the fact that they were legally married during a taxable 
year, than they would be required to pay if they had not been married. 
This section shall be implemented by--
            ``(1) giving married couples an annual option of both 
        filing using the tax status that they both would have otherwise 
        used if they had not been married, and
            ``(2) allocating income and deductions between them as they 
        would have if they had not been married.''
    (b) The table of sections for part I of subchapter B of chapter 1 
of such Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
item:

                              ``Sec. 69. Elimination of marriage 
                                        penalty.''
    (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H.R. 4122

AN ACT

To temporarily extend certain provisions of the

Marine Mammal Protection Act.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H.R. 4122

AN ACT

To temporarily extend certain provisions of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act.

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

3 That section 114(a)(1) of the Marine Mammal Protection

4 Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1383a(a)(1)), is amended by strik5 ing ‘‘April 1, 1994,’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘May

6 1, 1994,’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 24,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
Board of Directors Meeting

Thursday, September 9, 2021

This event is closed to the public

An information summary for the below listed project can be found on dfc.gov

Meeting Agenda

 

I. CHAIRMAN OPENS MEETING

II. MANAGEMENT REPORT 

III. CLIMATE UPDATE: RENEWABLES

IV. DFC’S OVERSEAS PRESENCE 

V. DFC FY 2023 BUDGET

VI. PROJECT APPROVALS

a. Smart Rio 

Structured Finance

b. PG Impact Credit Strategies 2020 S.C.A, SICAV-RAIF 

Equity

c. Avaada Sunrays Energy Private Limited 

Structured Finance

d. Daystar Power Group 

Equity

VII. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS

a. Updates to Corporate Bylaws 

b. Minutes – June 9, 2021, DFC Board of Directors Meeting 

VIII. CHAIRMAN ADJOURNS MEETING 

Location: Meeting will be held via videoconference
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4012 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4012

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel SEA BANDIT.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 1994

   Mr. Shaw introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel SEA BANDIT.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel SEA BANDIT (State of 
Florida vessel registration number 6605GJ).

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2

**CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.

The undersigned, who are theChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers, respectively, of MediaBin, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby each certify as follows:

The AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

  

|                 |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|----------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 28, 2003 |   |   |            */s/ DAVIDP. MORAN*                                                                                                 |
|                 |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|                 |   |   |            **David P. Moran**           **Chief Executive Officer****** |

  

|                 |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 28, 2003 |   |   |            */s/ HAINESHARGRETT*                                                                                                    |
|                 |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|                 |   |   |            **Haines H. Hargrett**           **Chief Financial Officer****** |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MALCOLM L. LANDRY,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MIKE BERRY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-17588

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-04707-RS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 25, 2013

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Mike Berry, a California Highway Patrol officer, appeals from the district

court’s denial of summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we reverse.

FILED

JUL 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
“[W]e are not precluded from hearing this interlocutory appeal merely

because there are issues of fact in dispute.” Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d

949, 951 (9th Cir. 2003). We may “determine if the denial of qualified immunity

was proper by assuming that the version of events offered by [Malcolm Landry] is

correct.” Id. 

We do not consider whether a constitutional violation occurred and decide

only that the district court erred in holding that Berry was not entitled to qualified

immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 235–36 (2009). “Even law

enforcement officials who ‘reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause

is present’ are entitled to immunity.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991)

(quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987)). “[A]n officer who

makes a reasonable mistake as to what the law requires under a given set of

circumstances is entitled to the immunity defense.” Boyd v. Benton Cnty., 374

F.3d 773, 781 (9th Cir. 2004). We conclude that it would not have been “clear to a

reasonable officer that [Berry’s] conduct was unlawful in the situation he

confronted,” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001), because there is no

decisional authority in this or other circuits establishing that detaining someone

under the circumstances Berry confronted—repeated complaints about Landry’s

inexplicably erratic driving, the chaotic state of his car, observations of fresh

2
damage to his car and a nearby guardrail, his refusal to abide by instructions to

remain at a hotel until he could be picked up, and his puzzling responses to Berry’s

questions—is unconstitutional. See Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 922 (9th

Cir. 2009). Berry’s conduct was not “so patently violative” of Landry’s rights that

he would have known “without guidance from the courts” that his actions were

unlawful. Boyd, 374 F.3d at 781 (quoting Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272,

1286 (9th Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, Berry is entitled to summary judgment on the

basis of qualified immunity. 

REVERSED.

3
MPS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

          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 MPS Group,  Inc. (the 'Company') on
Form 10-K for the period ending  December 31, 2002 as amended by the Form 10-K/A
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
'Report'),  I, Timothy D. Payne,  President and 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:

     (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.

Date: January 16, 2004                  /s/Timothy D. Payne
                                        Timothy D. Payne
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned officer of LED Lighting Company (the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:  The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Date: August 19, 2014   /s/ Kevin Kearney Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2013064EN.01000401.xml

| 5.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6723 — Ferrovial/Qatar Holding/CDPQ/Baker Street/BAA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 64/05

On 13 December 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6723. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6723. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for ***

the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUBEN MOVSISYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74687

Agency No. A099-550-440

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District

Judge.*** 

Based primarily on an adverse credibility finding, the Immigration Judge

(“IJ”) denied Ruben Movsisyan’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and

FILED

MAY 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) upheld the IJ’s decision and dismissed Movsisyan’s appeal. 

The evidence does not compel us to overturn the adverse credibility

determination. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006). 

That determination rested on discrepancies between Movsisyan’s testimony and his

asylum application as well as an interview he gave under oath with an asylum

officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Movsisyan was afforded an opportunity

to explain these discrepancies but was unable to do so plausibly. The IJ did not fail

to address any plausible explanation Movsisyan offered. See Soto-Olarte v.

Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d

1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 2004) (IJ must address “reasonable and plausible”

explanations for discrepancies).

Movsisyan contends that, even if his testimony is disbelieved, his

documentary evidence establishes a credible fear of future persecution and

therefore entitles him to relief. The record does not compel us to reject the BIA’s

finding that Movsisyan failed to produce credible, specific, and persuasive

evidence in support of his claim. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.

1995).
3

Movsisyan did not exhaust before the BIA his argument that the IJ’s refusal

to continue proceedings to allow for cross-examination of the asylum officer

deprived him of a full and fair hearing. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to

consider it. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

May 26, 2006

Ms. Regina Bacon Criswell

Law Office of Regina Bacon Criswell 

P.O. Box 1399

Helotes, TX 78023

Mr. Thomas G. Farrier

Murphy Mahon Keffler & Farrier, L.L.P.

Burk Burnett Building

500 Main Street, Suite 1200

Fort Worth, TX 76102

RE:Case Number:  05-0831

Court of Appeals Number:  13-04-00193-CV

Trial Court Number:  03-506-D

Style:STEVE CHILDERS

v.

ADVANCED FOUNDATION REPAIR, L.P.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment and remands the case to that court.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0831Page 1**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CORAM HEALTHCARE CORPORATION FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (21,749)
<INVENTORY>                                     22,966
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,596
<PP&E>                                          57,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                (35,281)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,088
<BONDS>                                        302,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,699)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,222
<SALES>                                        521,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               521,196
<CGS>                                          408,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  408,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,310
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (66,884)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (68,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (46,029)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (114,823)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.32)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4060 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4060

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the imposition of the 
 death penalty for espionage that resulted in the identification by a 
foreign power of an individual acting as an agent of the United States 
           and consequently in the death of that individual.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1994

   Mr. Dornan (for himself, Mr. Stump, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. 
Fields of Texas, Mr. King, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Lewis of Florida, Mr. Gekas, 
  Mr. Stearns, Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Levy) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the imposition of the 
 death penalty for espionage that resulted in the identification by a 
foreign power of an individual acting as an agent of the United States 
           and consequently in the death of that individual.

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

SECTION 1. ESPIONAGE.

    Section 794 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(e) Any person convicted of a violation of this section that 
resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in 
section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of 
an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently 
in the death of that individual, shall be punished by death.''.

                                 <all>
```