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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6339 

To prohibit withholding or revoking Federal funds based on the definition 

of ‘‘sex’’ used by a State, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To prohibit withholding or revoking Federal funds based 

on the definition of ‘‘sex’’ used by a State, 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 ‘‘States Choose Com5 mon Sense Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON WITHHOLDING OR REVOKING 

7 FEDERAL FUNDS BASED ON THE DEFINITION 

8 OF ‘‘SEX’’ USED BY A STATE. 

9 (a) PROHIBITION.—No Federal funds authorized to 

10 be made available to a State may be withheld or revoked 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6339 IH

1 on the basis of the State having in place any law, regula2 tion, or policy that defines ‘‘sex’’ based on the biological 

3 sex of an individual, as determined by the anatomy or ge4 netics of the individual at the time of birth. 

5 (b) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ 

6 means the following: 

7 (1) The 50 States of the United States. 

8 (2) The District of Columbia. 

9 (3) A territory or possession of the United 

10 States. 

11 (4) Any political subdivision, instrumentality, or 

12 authority of a State. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6248 

AN ACT 

To require Amtrak to report to Congress information on 

Amtrak compliance with the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 with respect to trains and stations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6248 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Think Differently 

3 Transportation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON AMTRAK ADA COMPLIANCE. 

5 Section 24315(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

8 (A) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘and’’ 

9 at the end; 

10 (B) in subparagraph (C) by striking the 

11 period at the end and inserting a semicolon; 

12 and 

13 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(D) shall include an action plan for bringing 

15 Amtrak rail cars and Amtrak-served stations that 

16 are not in compliance with the Americans with Dis17 abilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) into 

18 compliance with such Act as required by the settle19 ment agreement entered into in 2020 between Am20 trak and the Department of Justice; and 

21 ‘‘(E) shall include a status report on— 

22 ‘‘(i) Amtrak-served stations for which 

23 Amtrak is solely responsible for compliance 

24 with such Act based on a station assess25 ment carried out by Amtrak, including a 

26 timeline for any required compliance with 
3 

•HR 6248 EH

1 such Act, as required by the settlement 

2 agreement; 

3 ‘‘(ii) Amtrak-served stations for which 

4 Amtrak has a shared responsibility for 

5 compliance with such Act based on a sta6 tion assessment carried out by Amtrak, in7 cluding a timeline for any required compli8 ance with such Act for the portions of the 

9 station for which Amtrak is the responsible 

10 party consistent with the terms of the set11 tlement agreement, identifying who is re12 sponsible for compliance (and the status of 

13 the compliance of each responsible party 

14 with such Act) for such portions and the 

15 timeline for compliance in cases in which 

16 Amtrak is not the responsible party; and 

17 ‘‘(iii) the status of compliance with 

18 such Act for all Amtrak-served stations for 

19 which Amtrak is not the responsible party, 

20 nor is responsible for a portion of the sta21 tion, and the entity or entities that have 

22 responsibility for compliance with such 

23 Act, based on a station assessment carried 

24 out by Amtrak or the party responsible 

25 under such Act.’’; and 
4 

•HR 6248 EH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(3) In this subsection, the term ‘station assessment’ 

3 means a review of all components of a station including 

4 the building, platform, path to train, and parking areas, 

5 as required by the Access Board on the date of enactment 

6 of the Think Differently Transportation Act.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6248 

AN ACT 

To require Amtrak to report to Congress informatrains and stations. with Disabilities Act of 1990 with respect to tion on Amtrak compliance with the Americans
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JC/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MANU E L J OS E P H T R UJ I L L O, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. D A R R E L L G . A D A M S , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 15045 D. C . No . 0 5 - c v - 0 2 2 5 1 - J KS

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s K . S i ngl e t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , a n dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s . C al i forni a s t at e pri soner M anuel Jose ph T ruj i l l o app ea l s f rom the di stri ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

MA R 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ C/ Res ea r ch 08- 15045 2 T ru jillo c o n te n d s h e is e n title dto e q u itab le to llin g b e c au s e h is s ta te ap p e lla te c o u n s e l’s f

a ilu r e to e x h au s t af

e d e r a l c la im b e f

o r e th e C a lif

o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u rt, despi t e a ss urances she w ou l d d o so, prevent ed the t i m el y f i l i ng of hi s f

eder al habe a s pe t i t i on a nd tha tc i r c um s t a nc e w a s be y ond hi s c ontr ol . W e a gr e e w i th the di stri ctcourtthatcoun se l ’ s om i ss i on w as m ore a ki n t o o rdi narynegl i gence than an e g r e g io u s o m is s io n . See Mi ra n da v. Ca stro , 29 2 F . 3d 10 63 , 10 68 (9th C i r. 20 02 ); c f. S p i t syn v. Mo o re , 3 4 5 F . 3 d 7 9 6 , 8 0 0 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . F u rth e r , th e r e c o r ds h o ws thatT ruj i l l o rec ei ved, short l y bef ore i tw as fi l ed, a c op y of the pet i t i on for r evi ew ap p ellate co u n se l fil ed w ith th e C alifo rn ia S u p re m e C o u rt. T h u s, T ru ji ll o ’s c o n te n tio n f

a ils . Se e P a c e v . Di Gu g l i e lmo , 54 4 U . S . 40 8, 41 8 (20 05 ). T ruj i l l o al so cont ends w e s ho ul d rem and t o the di stri ctcourtfor an e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng on the a va i l abi l i tyof e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. T hi s c ont e nt i on l a c ks m e r it. Se e T

api a v . R oe , 18 9 F . 3d 10 52 , 10 56 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). W e d e n yT ru

jillo ’s r e q u e s t to e x p a n dth e c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ilityto i ncl ud e hi s c l ai m thathi s f i rs tfe dera l habeas pet i t i on w as i m prop er l y di sm i ss ed as u n e x h au s te d . See Hi i v ala v . W ood , 195 F . 3d 1098, 1103- 05 ( 9th C i r . 1999) (percuri am ). AF F I RME D.
#### Bobby Lee KINDER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERCED COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15158

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Bobby Lee Kinder, Jr., Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Bobby Lee Kinder, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal apd state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kinder’s action because Kinder failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, *311341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (requirement for establishing municipal liability claim); *Jones v. Williams,*297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining personal participation requirement); *Crumpton v. Gates,*947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (elements of § 1983 action).

To the extent Kinder requests copies of his medical records, copies of a police report, and the appointment of counsel in his opening brief, Kinder’s requests are denied.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 4

- 0 0033

- C R

Style: Eric Alonzo Greer

v

. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : January 9 , 201 5

Type of motion: Unopposed M otion for Extension of Time to File State’s Response Brief

Party filing motion: The State

Document to be filed: State ’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 1 0 , 201 4

Number of previous extensions granted: 2 Current Due date: January 10 , 201 5

Date Requested: February 10 , 201 5

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due: February 10 , 201 5

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary

circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 for the Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: January 15 , 2015
EXHIBIT 12

FIRST DATA CORPORATION

COMPUTATION OF

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                        |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|--------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | ----- | ---- | - | -----
|                                        |  | Three Months endedMarch 31,
|(in millions)                           |  | 2007                        |       | 2006
|Earnings:                               |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Income before income taxes(1)           |  | $                           | 209.1 |      | $ | 296.9
|Interest expense                        |  |                             | 34.5  |      |   | 57.6 
|Other adjustments                       |  |                             | 8.0   |      |   | 7.6  
|                                        |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Total earnings(a)                       |  | $                           | 251.6 |      | $ | 362.1
|                                        |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Fixed charges:                          |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Interest expense                        |  | $                           | 34.5  |      | $ | 57.6 
|Other adjustments                       |  |                             | 8.0   |      |   | 7.6  
|                                        |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Total fixed charges(b)                  |  | $                           | 42.5  |      | $ | 65.2 
|                                        |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(a/b) |  |                             | 5.92  |      |   | 5.55 

---

|(1) | Income before income taxes includes minority interest and equity earnings in affiliates, and excludes
discontinued operations. Reflecting such amounts on a cash basis would not materially impact the ratio due to the frequency of cash distributions.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, fixed charges consist of interest on debt, amortization of deferred financing costs and a portion of rentals determined to be representative of
interest. Fixed charges do not include interest on income tax liabilities. Earnings consist of income before income taxes plus fixed charges.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicacio GUTIERREZ-CAMBRON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40309 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicacio Gutierrez-Cambron, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nicacio Gutierrez-Cambron 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). Gutierrez-Cambron has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gutierrez-Cambron’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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 Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Morton’s”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Financial Officer of Morton’s, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Morton’s.

 

Date: August 17, 2004

 
|   | /s/  THOMAS J. BALDWIN   |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas  J. Baldwin       |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
1

Filed 6/20/16 P. v. Willis CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TODD JOSEPH WILLIS,

Defendant and Appellant. C081042

(Super. Ct. No. 15F06505)

Defendant Todd Joseph Willis was charged with felony first degree robbery and

m isdemeanor resisting an officer . The complaint alleged that, as to the robbery charge,

defendant had a prior st rike conviction

.

Defendant pled no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily

injury , a lesser related offens e to count one, and petty theft

, a newly added count , and

admitted the prior strike in exchange for a four

- year state prison sen tence and dismissal

of the resisting charge

. The factual basis of the plea is as follows:

On October 18, 2015, defendant assaulted R. T. by means of force likely to

produce great bodily injury. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the petty theft

charge

. On September 13, 2010, defendant was convicted of robbery , a felony.2

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant

to the lower term of two years on the assault , doubled for the prior strike, for an

ag gregate sentence of four years in state prison. Defendant, who was then serving time

on an unrelated matter, waived presentence custody credit in exchange for immediate

commencement of his sentence. The court imposed “minimum fees and fines” and

reserved jurisdiction on the issue of victim restitution.

The abstract of judgment imposed a $300 restitution fine; a $300 parole revocation

fine, stayed pending su ccessful completion of parole ; an $80 court operations assessment

,

and a $60 criminal conviction a ssessment

.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court granted his request for a

certificate of probable cause. ( § 1237.5.)

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that

we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.

( People v. Wend e (1979)

, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right

to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More

than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/

Hull, Acting P. J.

/s/

Butz. J.
#### James B. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; Scott S. Harris, Clerk of Court for Supreme Court of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7764

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

James B. Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James B. Curry appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). In its order, the district court stated that Curry had filed no objections to the report and recommendation despite having been warned of the consequences of failing to object. On appeal, Curry claims that he did not receive the report and recommenda*195tion, and he provides documentary support for his claim.

A party who fails to object in writing to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is not entitled to de novo review of the magistrate judge’s determinations and is barred from contesting those determinations on appeal. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). The waiver is a result of procedural default and does not affect jurisdiction. *Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 154, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). When a litigant is proceeding pro se, he must be given fair notice of the consequences of failing to object before a procedural default will apply. *Wright,*766 F.2d at 845-46.

From the record presented, we cannot conclusively determine whether Curry received a copy of the report and recommendation. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for the district court to make this determination in the first instance. Should the district court ■ find Curry’s claim to be credible, it-should provide him with a copy of the report and recommendation and afford him an opportunity to object. If, however, the court finds that Curry did receive the report and recommendation, it may reenter its original order, with any necessary modifications.

We deny Curry’s motions for default judgment and to “expedite service.” 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*
2NDS IN BUILDING CO. v. Kenneth PETERS

2150608

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                                     [LOGO]

                               DIXON HUGHES PLLC
                   Certified Public Accountants and Advisors


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-83875) of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc. of our report
dated October 22, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial condition of Wake
Forest Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for the years ended September 30, 2004 and 2003, appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc., included herein.

/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC

Sanford, North Carolina
December 23, 2004
John HOLMQUIST, Appellant, v. Jennifer THROPP, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3998

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN RE: Proceedings for the Claims of Amy HARRIEL, individually, and on behalf of the Estate of Daniel Harriel and on behalf of Cailyn Danielle Harriel

NO. 2018-CC-0442

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Lorna Nagler, ChiefExecutive Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”)certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended August 30, 2008 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: October 9,  2008 |
|-----------------------------|
|                        |
|                        | By: | /s/ Lorna E. Nagler |   |
|                        | Lorna E. Nagler

*President and Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

# ** **

# ****

# ** **