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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2843 

To prohibit the imposition of a fine, fee, or taxation on any person for 

violation of a COVID–19 vaccine mandate issued by the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration or any other executive agency, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the imposition of a fine, fee, or taxation on 

any person for violation of a COVID–19 vaccine mandate 

issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or any other executive agency, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘No Taxation Without 

5 Congressional Consent Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2843 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON OSHA AND OTHER EXECUTIVE 

2 AGENCIES IMPOSING FINES, FEES, OR TAXES 

3 WITH RESPECT TO COVID–19 VACCINE MAN4 DATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—No fine, fee, or taxation shall be 

6 imposed on any person for violating a COVID–19 vaccine 

7 mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health 

8 Administration or any other executive agency. 

9 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

10 (1) COVID–19 VACCINE MANDATE.—The term 

11 ‘‘COVID–19 vaccine mandate’’ means any require12 ment that an individual receive a COVID–19 vac13 cine, including any requirement that an employer re14 quire an employee or independent contractor to re15 ceive such a vaccine. 

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

17 agency’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

18 105 of title 5, United States Code. 

19 (3) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ has the 

20 meaning given such term in section 2510 of title 18, 

21 United States Code. 

22 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec23 tion shall be construed to allow for or otherwise authorize 

24 a COVID–19 vaccine mandate issued by an Act of Con25 gress or by an executive agency. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         380,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               446,476
<PP&E>                                          78,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,842)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,848,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,968,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                        21,295
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,141,630)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,848,274
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,307,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (16,952)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (11,290,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (11,290,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (11,290,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.55)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Novatel Wireless, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-163033, 333-163032, 333-145482, and 333-53692) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-162020) on Form S-3 of Novatel Wireless, Inc. (the Company) of our report dated March 15, 2009, with respect to the consolidatedstatements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows, and the related financial statement Schedule II of Novatel Wireless, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008, which report appears inthe December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Novatel Wireless, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 16, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41123

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ANGEL DE JESUS SANABIA-SANCHEZ, also known as Angel SarabiaSanchez, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:14-CR-290-1 

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, Angel De Jesus 

Sanabia-Sanchez was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment, which 

sentence included an eight-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a motor 

vehicle. For the first time on appeal, Sanabia-Sanchez argues that the district 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41123 Document: 00513786543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 14-41123

2 

court committed reversible plain error when it concluded that his prior 

burglary of a motor vehicle conviction qualified as a “crime of violence” under 

18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and thus constituted an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(43)(F), triggering the then-applicable § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) enhancement 

and the increased statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Relying 

primarily on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), SanabiaSanchez argues that the definition of a crime of violence in § 16(b), as 

incorporated by reference into the definition of an aggravated felony in 

§ 1101(a)(43)(F), is unconstitutionally vague on its face. He further contends 

that this court cannot apply § 16(b) in this case without violating due process. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, urging that Sanabia-Sanchez’s arguments are foreclosed by our 

recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 

2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The 

Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses both SanabiaSanchez’s facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b) and his challenge to our 

application of § 16(b) on due process grounds.1 See id. Accordingly, the motion 

for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternate motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED. 

 

1 The recent grant of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court on the issue 

whether § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson in Lynch v. Dimaya, 2016 WL 3232911 

(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 15-1498), does not alter the analysis. This court is bound by its own 

precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. See 

Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986). 

 Case: 14-41123 Document: 00513786543 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

BRIAN WAYNE CARPER,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 425 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**EXHIBIT 32.5**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of Iomega Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan S. Huberman, Vice Chairman 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 to my knowledge:

 

| (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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| /s/ Jonathan S. Huberman |
|--------------------------|

Jonathan S. Huberman

Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

August 10, 2006

 

This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Iomega Corporation specifically incorporates it by reference.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00265

- CV

Diamante Custom Homes, LLC v. Prosperity Bank USA

On Appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- 04

- 84348

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observa nce. January 6, 2022
Exhibit 32

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 Simon Property Group, L.P., on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/DAVID SIMONDavid Simon
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer of
Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner
March 13, 2008       |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/STEPHEN E. STERRETTStephen E. Sterrett
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of
Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner
March 13, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
\ . . 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CARLILE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10AL0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. [•AA-20IO-078') 

3 

~ 

u 

i-o 

CTJ 

m-'-im 

_LJ--J:~' 

5g'^ 

C O 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

In accordance with § 13.215 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 

C.F.R. part 13, subpart G, the Complainant, through counsel, hereby withdraws the complaint in 

this matter, and requests that these proceedings be terminated with prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted this the 2"'' day of November 2011. 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR 

Regional Counsel 

Bv:^ -

Q 

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Carlile Transportation Systems 

FAA Case No. 2010AL700I29 

FAA Docket No. CP10AL0003 

I hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the Withdrawal of Complaint by facsimile 

transmission as indicated and by placing it in the United States Mail, postage-prepaid, certified 

mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

Ll.S^Pep_ai1ment of Transportation _ ^.^ ^ ^ ._ ,_^^ 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX; (202)366-7536 

Roy L. Longacre, Esq. 

Longacre Law Offices, Lid. 

425 G Street, Suite 910 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

FAX: (907)279-4685 

I further certify that on this date 1 have served the original and one copy of the Withdrawal of 

Complaint by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 

Ud,^ ^ 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FAA Alaskan Region 

222 West 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

a^U^a ^ ^Ai^^^JPO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MELVIN MILTON DESHIELDS, a/k/a Michael Donovan

Hayes, a/k/a Chuck, a/k/a Donovan Michael

Hayes,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CR-00-191; CA-03-562-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Milton Deshields, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Milton Deshields seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Deshields that the failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,

Deshields failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Deshields has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 






 
  
 NUMBER 
 ARC 

COMMON STOCK 
 Altisource TM 
 Residential Corporation 

SHARES 
 CUSIP 02153W 10 0 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN
DEFINITIONS 
 ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 SPECIMEN 
 is the owner of 

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF 

Altisource Residential Corporation transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly
authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
 This Certificate is not valid
unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 Witness the facsimile signatures of
the Corporation’s duly authorized directors. 
 Dated: 

Countersigned and Registered: 
 AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
 (Brooklyn, NY) 
 Transfer Agent and Registrar

 By 
 Authorized Officer 
 Chairman of the Board

 AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY. 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

							
	TEN COM	 	–	 	as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–
                             Custodian
                        
	TEN ENT	 	–	 	as tenants by the entireties	  	                    (Cust)      
                             (Minor)    
	JT TEN	 	–	 	as joint tenants with right	  	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 	 	 	 	of survivorship and not as	  	Act                          
                  
	 	 	 	 	tenants in common	  	(State)                

  
 Additional abbreviations may
also be used though not in the above list. 
  

    For value received,
                                         
                            hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 

 

			
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	 	 
	 	
	
    
	 	 
		
	     
	 	 
	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE
		
	     
	 	 
		
	     
	 	 


			
		
	 	 	Shares


			
	
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute 
and appoint
                                        

	
	     

	Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

  
 Dated,
                         
  

							
	 	  	 	 	 	  	  


	 	  	 	 	NOTICE:	  	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY
CHANGE WHATEVER.
				
	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:	  	 	 	 	  	 
				
	  

	  	 	 	 	  	 
	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED
SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2894 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2894

To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord Stream 2 AG 
pursuant to the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2021

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord Stream 2 AG 
pursuant to the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

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

SECTION 1. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORD STREAM 2 AG.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the President shall impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) of 
section 10 of the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic 
Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 (22 U.S.C. 8909), as added by section 
228 of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act 
(Public Law 115-44; 131 Stat. 911), with respect to Nord Stream 2 AG.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Platon Tzouvalis hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Acrongenomics Inc.
      for the period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|2. | information contained in the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Acrongenomics Inc.                                   

Date: November 16, 2009

| | /s/
      Platon Tzouvalis   
| | -----------------------------
| | Platon Tzouvalis             
| | President and Director       
| | (Principal Executive 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Acrongenomics
Inc. and will be retained by Acrongenomics Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2016108EN.01000501.xml

| 23.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/5

---

Call for proposals — European Defence Agency (EDA)

(2016/C 108/04)

The European Defence Agency (EDA) is launching a call for proposals under the Union-funded pilot project on defence research. The management of the pilot project and its implementation through call for proposals has been entrusted to the EDA through a Delegation Agreement concluded with the European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.

The call has the objective of requesting proposals to address the following topics:

| (1) | PP-15-INR-01: Unmanned heterogeneous swarm of sensor platforms; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

PP-15-INR-01: Unmanned heterogeneous swarm of sensor platforms;

| (2) | PP-15-STAN-CERT-01: Standardisation of remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) detect and avoid (DAA); |
| --- | --- |

(2)

PP-15-STAN-CERT-01: Standardisation of remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) detect and avoid (DAA);

| (3) | Inside-building awareness and navigation for urban warfare (Subject to availability of funds). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Inside-building awareness and navigation for urban warfare (Subject to availability of funds).

All information relating to the present call for proposal can be found on the EDA Procurement Gateway website: http://www.eda.europa.eu/procurement-gateway

---
#### Phœnixville Borough, Appellant, *v.*Walters.

February 25, 1907:

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

It was agreed by counsel that the decision in this case should follow that of the Burgess and Town Council of the Borough of Phcenixville, against John B. Miller, ante, p. 6, in which an opinion has been this day filed reversing the judgment and entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the verdict. The judgment in this case is therefore revei sed and judgment is now entered in favor of the plaintiff on the verdict.