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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6059 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6059

To permit a State to impose a sales tax on qualifying purchases at any 
         gift shop on Federal property, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2023

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit a State to impose a sales tax on qualifying purchases at any 
         gift shop on Federal property, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Federal Gift Shop Tax Act''.

SEC. 2. SALES TAX IN GIFT SHOPS.

    (a) In General.--A State may levy a sales tax on qualifying 
purchases made from any gift shop located on Federal property.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Federal property.--The term ``Federal property'' means 
        any building, land, or other real property owned, leased, or 
        occupied by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
        United States, or any other instrumentality wholly owned by the 
        United States, including any facility or property of the 
        Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the John 
        F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the United 
        States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
            (2) Qualifying purchase.--The term ``qualifying purchase'' 
        means any purchase made in the gift shop or made online through 
        the gift shop.
            (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each State of the 
        United States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, 
        the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, 
        any other territory or possession of the United States, and any 
        political subdivision of the foregoing.
                                 <all>
```
#### Randall FONTANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF AUBURN et al., Defendants, and Sgt. James Nordenger, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-35784

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 7, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed March 09, 2017

Dan N. Fiorito, III, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Dan N. Fiorito III, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Amanda Gabrielle Butler, Attorney, Richard Brooks Jolley, Esquire, Attorney, Keating Bucklin McCormack, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Randall Fontana timely appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sergeant James Nordenger on Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims of unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. Reviewing de novo the district court’s ruling that Nordenger is entitled to qualified immunity and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Reza v. Pearce, 806 F.3d 497, 502 (9th Cir. 2015), we affirm.1

1. The district court correctly held that Nordenger is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim. Given the facts known to Nordenger—including the threatening nature of Plaintiffs statements, their proximity in time to the Lakewood killings, the reliability of the named citizen informant who was interviewed by officers, and the reports of Plaintiffs post-statement conduct—it was “reasonably arguable that there was probable cause for arrest.” Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011) (per cu-riam) (emphasis omitted).

2. The district court correctly held that Nordenger is entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim. The evidence does not disclose “wrongful motives or reckless disregard of’ Plaintiffs rights. State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wash.2d 454, 158 P.3d 595, 602 (2007). Plaintiff has not overcome the ordinary presumption that the decision to file criminal charges “result[ed] from an independent determination on the part of the prosecutor, [which] precludes liability for those who participated in the investigation or filed a report that resulted in the initiation of *614proceedings.” Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because the district court correctly ruled on qualified immunity, we need not and do not address the court’s alternative ground for granting summary judgment—issue preclusion. Also, because Plaintiff’s opening brief challenges the summary judgment only as to Nordenger, we do not address the summary judgment in favor of the other Defendants. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that arguments not raised in a party's opening brief generally are waived).
#### Frederick BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.A. Sean LANGFORD; S.A. Robert Werner; Director of the Office of Personnel Management, 1615 M Street, NW Washington DC 20419; S.A. Timothy Pivnichny; FBI; Hon Mark Hornak; Hon Joy Flowers Conti; Hon Nora Barry Fisher; Hon Thomas Hardiman; David Anderchak, US Postal Inspector; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Mike Pompeo, Director of Central Intelligence; CIA; United States of America; Ausa Robert Cessar; Ausa Paul Hull; Ausa Brendan Conway; David Hicton, US Attorney, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6418

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Banks appeals the district court’s orders dismissing as frivolous his *145self-styled “Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus; and Motion to Disclose Electronic Surveillance under 50 USC 1806(f)[,]” and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and, for the reasons stated by the district court, dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *Banks v. Langford,*No. 5:16-hc-02141-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2017 & Mar. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and. legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Douglas Mikorski et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 860]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered August 13, 2003, denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the vehicle owned by defendant City and operated by defendant Maiorana hit plaintiffs vehicle from behind, summary judgment as to liability was properly denied since Maiorana adequately explained the collision as attributable to circumstances other than negligence on his part. Officer Maiorana’s testimony that he was riding his scooter in formation as part of a presidential detail, and was some three scooter lengths behind plaintiffs vehicle—also part of the formation— when he hit a roadway defect and lost control of his vehicle, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the complained-of accident was attributable to Maiorana’s negligence *(see Ebanks v Triboro Coach Corp.,*304 AD2d 406 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
### 2 Table 1. Summary of Reviewed Environm ental Fate Data for Chlorpyrifos
Data Requirement Guideline
Number MRID Study
Classification 1 

### Remarks

Field Volatility 835.8100 48998801 Supplemental This study is an open literature study conducted on potatoes in the Netherlands. The study is classified supplemental since the raw data for this study could not be obtained by EPA. The flux rates could not be independently verified and, thus, evaluation of experimental details and associated data quality for this study are not are as rigorous as normally completed by EFED. This study should only be used for characterization purposes in risk assessment.

Air photolysis 835.2370 48789701 Supplemental This study was submitted by Dow AgroSciences; however, the results have not been verified by EPA
as the raw data submitted to the EPA could not be interpreted. EFED requests that the registrant submit the raw data in a format that can be used to verify the study results. Nevertheless, the results obtained for indirect photolysis are consistent with the Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite estimations. EPI Suiteis commonly used by EPA to estimate physicalchemical parameters when data are unavailable. This study confirms the formation of chlorpyrifos-oxon via photolysis.

1 OPPIN Classifications: Acceptable/Guideline; Acceptable/N on-Guideline; Cited; Confirmatory; Decision Deferred; Extraneous submission; In Review; No Decision; Partially Acceptable; Supplemental: Unaccepta ble/Guideline; Unacceptable/Non-Guide line; Upgradeable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-05-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-05-1997
<CASH>                                             277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                       507
<INVENTORY>                                     31,334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,464
<PP&E>                                          14,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,739
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,254
<SALES>                                        100,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,366
<CGS>                                           83,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,622
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,664
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,958
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          25,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,608
<PP&E>                                         126,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           206
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,391
<SALES>                                         79,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,745
<CGS>                                           27,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (573)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,753
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,642
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,483
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,483
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
Delane DAVIS, DOC# S23053, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-678

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jason Maurice JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D15-1943

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk CommunicationsCorp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)         This  AmendmentNo. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities ExchangeAct.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis HERNANDEZ-FLORES, also known as Jose Luis-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51439 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 11, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Luis Hernandez-Flores, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Hernandez-Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Flores has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, *79counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Fox
Strategic Housing Income Partners 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000800080
<NAME> FOX STRATEGIC HOUSING INCOME PARTNERS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          21,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          7,891
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,198
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (8.96)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.112
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION 
2017 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN 
FORM OF AMENDMENT TO CASH AWARD AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO CASH AWARD AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made by and between Caesars Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), and ______________________ (the “Participant”), on the date set forth on the final page of this Amendment.  Any capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the definitions set forth in the Plan (defined below).
WHEREAS, the Corporation has adopted the Caesars Entertainment Corporation 2017 Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), pursuant to which a variety of types of awards, including cash awards, may be granted; 
WHEREAS, the Administrator has granted to Participant an award pursuant to the Plan in the form of the Cash Award Agreement dated as of December      , 2018 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Administrator and Participant desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, for themselves, their successors and assigns, hereby agree as follows:
1.Amendment.  The term “Vesting Schedule” on the final page of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:   “The Cash Award shall vest on February 1, 2020, subject to Participant’s continued employment or service with the Company or one of its Subsidiaries through such vesting date; provided, that the unvested Cash Award shall automatically vest in full upon a Participant’s termination employment or service with the Company or one of its Subsidiaries resulting from (i) a termination by the Company without Cause, (ii) a resignation by Participant for Good Reason, or (iii) a Participant’s death or Disability.”
2.Miscellaneous.  The provisions of Article 6 of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment.













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation and Participant have executed this Agreement as set forth below.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION




By: _____________________________________
Name:  
Title:    




Date: ____________________________________


Agreed to and Accepted by:


_________________________                
Name:
Marquese D. GOODMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1191

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Belated appeal is dismissed.
| 1.   | The      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);      and |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:            |   | February      3, 2009                    |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|  Signature: |   |  /s/      Mitchell Cox              |
|  Title:     |   | Mitchell CoxChief      Financial Officer |