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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3827 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3827

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to deny convicted felons and 
 other individuals the opportunity to seek administrative relief from 
 prohibitions against possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving 
 firearms or ammunition, and to eliminate the authority of the Federal 
   courts to admit additional evidence in reviewing denials of such 
                administrative relief for other persons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 1994

Ms. Harman (for herself, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Berman, Mr. Evans, Mr. Levy, 
 and Ms. Schenk) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to deny convicted felons and 
 other individuals the opportunity to seek administrative relief from 
 prohibitions against possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving 
 firearms or ammunition, and to eliminate the authority of the Federal 
   courts to admit additional evidence in reviewing denials of such 
                administrative relief for other persons.

    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 ``Felon Gun Prohibition Act''.

SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM CERTAIN FIREARMS PROHIBITIONS DENIED 
              TO INDIVIDUALS; ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN 
              JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DENIALS OF SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 
              FOR OTHER PERSONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the 1st sentence, by inserting ``(other than an 
        individual)'' before ``who is prohibited'';
            (2) by striking the 2nd and 3rd sentences; and
            (3) in the 4th sentence--
                    (A) by inserting ``person (other than an 
                individual) who is a'' before ``licensed importer''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``his'' and inserting ``such''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to--
            (1) applications for administrative relief, and actions for 
        judicial review, that are pending on the date of the enactment 
        of this Act; and
            (2) applications for administrative relief filed, and 
        actions for judicial review brought, after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3924 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3924

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide enhanced sentences to 
                       repeat violent offenders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 1994

Mr. Carr of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide enhanced sentences to 
                       repeat violent offenders.

    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 ``Two-Time Loser Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO TIME VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

    Section 3581 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(c) Punishment of Certain Violent Felons.--
            ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this title or any other law, in the case of a conviction for a 
        Federal violent felony, the court shall sentence the defendant 
        to prison for life, if the defendant has previously been 
        convicted of another State or Federal violent felony which 
        occurred during a separate criminal episode.
            ``(2) Definition.--As used in this section the term 
        `violent felony' is a crime--
                    ``(A) that involves as an element of the offense 
                the threatened use, use, or the risk of use of physical 
                force against the person of another;
                    ``(B) for which the maximum authorized imprisonment 
                exceeds 15 years; and
                    ``(C) which is not designated a misdemeanor by the 
                law that defines the offense.
            ``(3) Effect on death penalty.--This subsection shall not 
        be construed to prevent the imposition of the death penalty.''.

                                 <all>
```
July 6 , 2015

Mr. Jonathan Rupprecht

Counsel for Intelligent Imagery, LLC

Rupprecht Law, P.A.

324 Datura Street, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, F L 33401

Dear Mr. Rupprecht:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for a n exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your April 1 , exemption request into the public do cket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 08 78 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process y our request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Ai rmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this report of BMB Munai, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Evgeniy Ler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley            Act of 2002, that: 

 

|   | (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: November 12, 2009 | /s/ Evgeniy Ler                      |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                    | Evgeniy Ler, Chief Financial Officer |
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: John D. Kinard January 15, 2015

County: Galveston (Criminal)

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Please acknowledge the receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return 

the original to this court.

14-11-00249-CR Charles Wayne Hines v The State of Texas 10CR0438

State’s Exhibit 2, a DVD

Received by: ________________________________________

Received on: ________________________________________
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60744 Summary Calendar

LONGRU WEI; YIBIAO LIAO ,
Petitioner s

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 260 360

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Longru Wei and Yibiao Liao, natives and citizens of China, petition this
court for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying their asylum application. Wei conte nds that she was persecuted in China when family planning officials forced her to have three abortions and that she would be involuntarily sterilized if she were to return to China with her second child,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60744 Document: 00514245038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2017N o. 16

- 60744

2 who was born while she was in the United States. We i’s son, Yibiao, seeks asylum as a derivative applicant. Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s denial of relief, we will review both
decisions. See Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009)

. We review factual findings under the substantial eviden ce standard, and legal questions
de novo. Orellana

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F. 3d 511, 517

- 18 (5th Cir. 2012)

. An alien seeking asylum must demonstrate past persecution or a well

founded fear of persecution because o f one of five protected grounds including political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i). A forced abortion or an involuntary sterilization qualifies as persecution on account of political opinion
under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). In this case, the IJ’s and BIA’s denial of Wei’s claim for a sylum is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ and BIA provided numerous specific, cogent reasons in support of the IJ’s adverse credibility decision against Wei. See Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). The evidence does not compel a conclusion that Wei demonstrated past persecution through her claim of having three abortions while in China or
that she demonstrated a well

- founded fear of persecution based on her alleged fear of involuntary sterilization or economic penalties if she were to return to China with her two children. See Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 597

- 98 (5th Cir. 2007); Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005)

. The petition for review is DENIED. Case: 16-60744 Document: 00514245038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2017
Order entered March 20, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 013 71 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 013 72 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01373 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01374 - CR CHARLES BRIGHTMON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265t h Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 11 - 59566 - R , F 11 - 59567 - R, F11 - 59568 - R, F13 - 56195 - R 

### O RDER The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s records in these appeals within TWENTY - ONE DAYS of the da te of this order. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LA NA MYERS JUSTICE
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7**  **663**

DE’ANTE OCTARIO HOWARD , P etitioner

- Appellant ,
v. KENNETH E. LASSITER , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Green sboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1 :12

- cv - 0 0453

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
De’Ante Octario Howard , Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
De’Ante O ctario Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S . 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional rig ht. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Howard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0471 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM219AD
84 -27 - 50, RC --- 7/26/10 84 -27 - 50, RB --- 5/19/10 84 -27 - 50, RA --- 4/28/10 84 -27 - 50 --- 3/3/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** F ederal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Rainbow Coral Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patrick Brown, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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.  November 19, 2012/s/ Patrick BrownPatrick Brown, President,Principal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial and Accounting officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of American Technology Corporation (the
Company), that, to his or knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Dated: December 20, 2002





/s/ ELWOOD G. NORRIS





Elwood G. Norris,


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman (Principal Executive Officer)





Dated: December 20, 2002





/s/ RENEE WARDEN





Renee Warden,


Chief Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Financial
Officer)
Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel Interruptions 

Yes

No

Was Soldier 

ordered

to isolate/ 

quarantine? 

(I/Q)

Continue to follow DoD’s Force 

Health Protection Guidance 

Where is 

the Soldier?

@ TDY Location 

@ a Port of Entry

Enroute back to PDS

NOTES: 

1. TDY travel interruptions includes those Soldiers returning from a deployment who are ordered into isolation or quarantine for self-monitoring.

2. Soldiers with dependents are authorized Family Separation Allowance – Temporary (FSA-T) if the period of the TDY and period of self-monitoring is for more the 30 continuous days and the Soldier’s 

dependents do not reside at or within 50 miles of TDY or self-monitoring location. 

Is the 

Soldier TDY 

away from 

PDS?

Start Yes

Amend TDY orders and authorize standard 

travel and transportation allowances for 

travel to and stay at new location. 2

No

Was the Soldier 

ordered to return 

to PDS?

Yes

No

Was the Soldier 

ordered to reroute 

away from TDY 

location?

Yes

No

Continue to follow DoD’s Force 

Health Protection Guidance. 

Authorize standard travel and transportation 

allowances for travel to return to the PDS. 

Was Soldier 

ordered

to isolate/ 

quarantine? 

(I/Q)

Yes

No

Go to Ordered into 

ROM Flowchart

Mission Complete

Amend TDY orders to cover the location 

and period of I/Q. 2

Proponent: DAPE-PRC, Version 1, Dated: 27 March 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

E. K. WADE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15081

D.C. No. 3:17

- mc

- 80163

- JD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

E. K. Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Wade

leave to file a complaint pursuant to a vexatious litigant pre

- filing order. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a pre

filing order. Mol

ski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. , 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argumen t. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15081

2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abu se its discretion in declaring Wade a vexatious

litigant and entering a pre

- filing order against him. See id. at 1057

- 61. The court

provided Wa de with notice and an opportunity to respond, discussed Wade’s

numerous prior lawsuits, found the lawsuits to be frivolous and harassing, and

narrowly tailored its order to address Wade’s particular abuses. See id. Contrary

to Wade’s contention, the dist rict court properly exercised its inherent power under

the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to enter the pre

- filing order

. See Weissman

v. Quail Lodge

, Inc. , 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to accept Wade’s

proposed complaint s for filing because Wade’s proposed complaints fall within the

scope of the prefiling order entered against him. See West v. Procunier , 452 F.2d

645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize filing of

complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’ s authority to effectuate

compliance with its earlier order”).

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL  FINANCIAL
OFFICER

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 accompanying quarterly
report on Form 10-Q of Luxeyard, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, I, Margot Ritcher, Chief Financial Officer of Luxeyard,
Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|1. | Such quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, 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 such quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2012, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Luxeyard, Inc.



|Date: August 20, 2012                                                               
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|LUXEYARD, INC.                                                                      
|                                                                                    
|By:/s/ Margot Ritcher                                                               
|Margot Ritcher
        Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)