alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QUICK TIPS: MSF’s Guide to Group Riding 

Motorcycling is primarily a solo activity, but for many, riding as a group -- whether with friends on a 

Sunday morning ride or with an organized motorcycle rally -- is the epitome of the motorcycling 

experience. Here are some tips to help ensure a fun and safe group ride: 

Arrive prepared. Arrive on time with a full gas tank. 

Hold a riders’ meeting. Discuss things like the route, rest and fuel stops, and hand signals (see

diagrams on next page). Assign a lead and sweep (tail) rider. Both should be experienced riders 

who are well-versed in group riding procedures. The leader should assess everyone’s riding skills 

and the group’s riding style. 

Keep the group to a manageable size, ideally five to seven riders. If necessary, break the group 

into smaller sub-groups, each with a lead and sweep rider. 

Ride prepared. At least one rider in each group should pack a cell phone, first-aid kit, and full tool 

kit, so the group is prepared for any problem that they might encounter. 

Ride in formation. The staggered riding formation (see diagram below) allows a proper space 

cushion between motorcycles so that each rider has enough time and space to maneuver and to 

react to hazards. The leader rides in the left third of the lane, while the next rider stays at least one 

second behind in the right third of the lane; the rest of the group follows the same pattern. A 

single-file formation is preferred on a curvy road, under conditions of poor visibility or poor road 

surfaces, entering/leaving highways, or other situations where an increased space cushion or 

maneuvering room is needed. 

Avoid side-by-side formations, as they reduce the space cushion. If you suddenly needed to 

swerve to avoid a hazard, you would not have room to do so. You don’t want handlebars to get 

entangled. 

Periodically check the riders following in your rear view mirror. If you see a rider falling 

behind, slow down so they may catch up. If all the riders in the group use this technique, the group 

should be able to maintain a fairly steady speed without pressure to ride too fast to catch up. 

If you’re separated from the group, don’t panic. Your group should have a pre-planned 

procedure in place to regroup. Don’t break the law or ride beyond your skills to catch up. 

For mechanical or medical problems, use a cell phone to call for assistance as the situation 

warrants. 
MSF’s Guide to Group Riding: Hand Signals 

www.msf-usa.org 4/05
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1541 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1541

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide support to State 
  and local governments in their efforts to counter violent extremist 
                    threats, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2021

Mr. Aguilar (for himself, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Payne, Miss Rice 
 of New York, Mrs. Luria, Mr. Correa, Mrs. Napolitano, Mrs. Fletcher, 
   Mr. Lieu, Mr. Panetta, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Vargas, Mr. 
  Moulton, Ms. Blunt Rochester, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Carson, Mr. 
 Cooper, Mr. Levin of California, Mr. Kahele, and Ms. Meng) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                                Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide support to State 
  and local governments in their efforts to counter violent extremist 
                    threats, 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 ``Preventing Radical Extremist's 
Violent Endeavors Now and Tomorrow Act of 2021'' or the ``PREVENT Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO 
              COUNTER VIOLENT EXTREMIST THREATS.

    Subsection (b) of section 801 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
(6 U.S.C. 361) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) for the purposes of countering violent extremist 
        threats--
                    ``(A) provide training from specially trained 
                clinical social workers, psychologists, religious 
                leaders, community leaders, and law enforcement 
                personnel, to assist local efforts at securing the 
                homeland; and
                    ``(B) in coordination with the Federal Bureau of 
                Investigation, provide to State and local governments 
                specialists, analysts, and agents trained to counter 
                terrorism and White nationalism to assist, in the 
                manner and degree necessary, local efforts at 
                responding to such threats.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Anton io, Texas

August 12, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00190

- CV

John M. DONOHUE

, Appellant

v.

CITY OF BOERNE CHIEF OF POLICE JAMES KOEHLER , Officer Pablo Morales, and Martha L. Donohue, Appellee s

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 15

- 003

- CCL and 15

- 003

- CCL

- A Honorable William R. Palmer Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee Martha Donohue’s brief was due August 8, 2016. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. We order appellee Martha Donohue to file her brief by August 22, 2016. If the brief is not filed by the date ordered, we may ord er the case submitted without a brief from this appellee.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6089 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6089

     To prohibit States or local governments from prohibiting the 
 connection, reconnection, modification, installation, or expansion of 
     an energy service based on the type or source of energy to be 
                   delivered, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2023

 Mr. Langworthy (for himself, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, 
Mr. Lawler, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Moylan, Mr. Newhouse, 
   Ms. Tenney, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Zinke, and Mr. Higgins of Louisiana) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit States or local governments from prohibiting the 
 connection, reconnection, modification, installation, or expansion of 
     an energy service based on the type or source of energy to be 
                   delivered, 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 ``Energy Choice Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON REGULATION OF ENERGY CHOICE.

    (a) In General.--No State or local government, or instrumentality 
or regulatory agency thereof, may adopt a law, ordinance, building 
code, or efficiency standard that prohibits, or has the effect of 
prohibiting, the connection, reconnection, modification, installation, 
or expansion of an energy service based on the type or source of energy 
to be delivered to an end-user of such energy service.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``energy'' includes--
            (1) natural gas;
            (2) renewable gas;
            (3) hydrogen;
            (4) liquified petroleum gas;
            (5) renewable liquified petroleum gas;
            (6) other liquid petroleum products;
            (7) biomass-based diesel fuels;
            (8) other liquid petroleum products and renewable fuels; 
        and
            (9) electricity.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2 – CFO Certification**

 

**HEARTLAND, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADDED BY**

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

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Gruenbaum, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

By: /s/ Jerry Gruenbaum

Jerry Gruenbaum

Chief Financial Officer,

Secretary and Director

 

March 20, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("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 Heartland, Inc., and will be retained by Heartland, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          175,112
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            175,000
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 175,112
<CASH>                                         206,079
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,460,596
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,801
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,016,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,460,596
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            152,527
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (10,410)
<OTHER-INCOME>                               3,516,656
<BENEFITS>                                           0
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         3,669,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,042
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,567)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,567)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN AARON COHEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-55669

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01609-BASMDD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016**

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Jonathan Aaron Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking a declaratory 

judgment that he will not be criminally sanctioned under federal or state law for 

transporting, in the course of his business, cannabis for medical purposes. We 

 

* 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 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-55669 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Aydin Corp. v. Union of India, 

940 F.2d 527, 527 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cohen’s action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction because Cohen failed to establish an injury as required for

Article III standing. See Hillblom v. United States, 896 F.2d 426, 430-31 (9th Cir. 

1990) (plaintiffs’ allegations were “premised on potential future acts” and 

subsequently insufficient to establish an “injury which warrants judicial 

intervention”); Aydin Corp., 940 F.2d at 527-28 (declaratory relief is proper only 

when there is an actual case or controversy); see also Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (setting forth the elements of Article III 

standing).

In light of our disposition, we do not address Cohen’s Statement on Oral 

Argument, filed August 17, 2015.

AFFIRMED.
STATE EX REL. Ronald NAQUIN v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0619

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto GONZALEZ-LOERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10481

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed March 01, 2017

*596See also, 2017 WL 1365669.

Maria Rodriguez Gutierrez, USYU-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Yuma, AZ, Karen S. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Celia Rumann, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: TASHIMA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Gonzalez-Loera (“Gonzalez”) appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Gonzalez argues that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by modifying his plea agreement, but has not shown plain error because he has not shown that any alleged error affected substantial rights. *See United States v. Kyle,*734 F.3d 956, 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2013). Count 1 of the superseding indictment is identical to count 1 of the original indictment with the addition of four additional *597co-conspirators. Gonzalez argues that this addition had the potential to increase his sentence by expanding the scope of the conspiracy and, thus, the amount of drugs involved. However, a review of the record shows that the addition of four additional co-conspirators did not in fact affect the Guidelines range or Gonzalez’s ultimate sentence. Nor does the evidence suggest that Gonzalez would not have pled guilty to count 1 of the superseding indictment; on the contrary, his initials by every insertion of the word “superseding” in the plea agreement indicate that he intended to plead to that count.

2. Gonzalez also raised a double jeopardy challenge. But this challenge is waived under the valid and binding appellate waiver in Gonzalez’s plea agreement. *See United States v. Hernandez-Guardado,*228 F.3d 1017, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000).

3, Gonzalez argues that the court intruded upon the prosecutor’s charging decision by requiring him to plead to count 1 of the superseding indictment. But, the government intended him to plead to this count. The references in the plea agreement to the original indictment were simply and unintended oversight. Therefore, the court did not force the prosecution to bring “a charge it did not want to bring.” *In re Ellis,*356 F.3d 1198, 1209 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

**

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,090
<OTHER-SE>                                   (130,590)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.002)



</TABLE>
Exhibit
13





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 Commtouch Software Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Gideon Mantel and
Ron Ela, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our
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/Gideon Mantel
              
              /s/Ron
      ElaGideon
      Mantel
              
              Ron
      ElaChief
      Executive Officer
              
              Chief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      30, 2009
              
              March
      30, 2009
EXHIBIT 21



Subsidiaries of NetIQ Corporation



|                                                 |  |                
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|Subsidiary                                       |  | Jurisdiction   
|NetIQ Pty Ltd.                                   |  | Australia      
|NetIQ do Brasil Ltda.                            |  | Brazil         
|NetIQ Europe Limited                             |  | Ireland        
|NetIQ Deutschland GmbH                           |  | Germany        
|NetIQ Ireland Limited                            |  | Ireland        
|NetIQ Software International Limited             |  | Cyprus         
|NetIQ K.K.                                       |  | Japan          
|NetIQ Nederlands                                 |  | The Netherlands
|NetIQ Benelux                                    |  | Benelux        
|NetIQ Canada Corporation                         |  | Canada         
|NetIQ Denmark Aps                                |  | Denmark        
|NetIQ France Sarl                                |  | France         
|NetIQ Asia Limited                               |  | Hong Kong      
|NetIQ Italia Srl                                 |  | Italy          
|NetIQ Korea Limited                              |  | Korea          
|NetIQ Asia Pty Ltd.                              |  | Singapore      
|NetIQ Software Espana SL                         |  | Spain          
|NetIQ Limited                                    |  | United Kingdom 
|NetIQ Sweden AB                                  |  | Sweden         
|Database Tools Development (Proprietary) Limited |  | South Africa   
|Marshal Software Limited                         |  | New Zealand    
|Marshal International Limited                    |  | New Zealand    
|Marshal Software Europe Limited                  |  | United Kingdom 
|Marshal Software LLC                             |  | Georgia, USA   
|Mission Critical Software, Inc.                  |  | Delaware, USA  
|PentaSafe Security Technologies, Inc.            |  | Texas, USA     
|PentaSafe Acquisition Corp.                      |  | Texas, USA     
|PentaSafe Distribution, Inc.                     |  | Delaware, USA  
|PentaSafe Security Technologies, Ltd.            |  | United Kingdom 
|PentaSafe Security Technologies, GmbH            |  | Germany        
|PentaSafe Services, Inc.                         |  | Delaware, USA  
|PentaSafe Security Technologies A/S              |  | Denmark