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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6225 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for a housing 

loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain individuals who performed active duty for training. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Mr. RYAN (for himself and Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility 

for a housing loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain individuals who performed active 

duty for training. 

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 ‘‘Expanding Home 

5 Loans for Guard and Reservists Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6225 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR HOUSING LOANS 

2 GUARANTEED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

3 AFFAIRS. 

4 (a) ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION.—Section 3701(b) of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following new paragraphs: 

7 ‘‘(8) The term ‘veteran’ also includes, for the 

8 purposes of home loans, an individual who per9 formed active duty for training for a period of not 

10 less than 30 consecutive days. 

11 ‘‘(9) The term ‘active duty for training’ has the 

12 meaning given such term in section 101 of this title, 

13 but does not include basic training (as such term is 

14 used in sections 7419, 8431, and 9419 of title 10).’’. 

15 (b) ENTITLEMENT TO HOUSING LOAN.—Section 

16 3702(a)(2) of such title is amended by adding at the end 

17 the following new subparagraph: 

18 ‘‘(H) Each individual described in section 

19 3701(b)(8) of this title.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131844(32) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, SHERMAN TOWNSHIP, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131844 COA: 269020 St. Joseph CC: 03-001068-CZ JOSEPH A. LEEMREIS and LORI M. LEEMREIS, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s November 15, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsid eration and, on reconsider ation, would grant leave to appeal.

d0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 31.1
**Officer Certification**
I, L. Dick Buell, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Catalina MarketingCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: September 14, 2004
By: /s/ L. Dick Buell
#### Mbunta Peter NKONGHO, Also Known as Peter Nkongho Mbunta, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-60606 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

Randall L. Johnson, Esq., Johnson <& Associates, P.C., Vienna, VA, for Petitioner

Laura M. L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent

*400Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mbunta Nkongho, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was ordered removed for remaining in the United States longer than permitted. He petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his motions for reconsideration and to reopen.

First, Mbunta claims that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. He contends that he should not have been required to provide corroborating evidence of his claims; he was not put on notice that his adverse credibility determination would affect how his new testimony would be viewed; he was not provided with the opportunity to reconcile discrepancies in his testimony; the BIA failed to reconsider the prior decision in light of the country report; and the BIA failed to address his application for adjustment of status.

Next, Mbunta contends that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. He contends that the BIA failed to articulate the basis for rejecting the medical evidence submitted with the motion; the country conditions report buttressed his argument that he was persecuted and tortured; the BIA erroneously discounted the affidavits of family members and a neighbor; and his claim of future persecution was tainted by the adverse credibility finding.

Our review of the briefs and the record demonstrates that Mbunta has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motions. *See Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
Jacqueline BRENNER, et al. v. Dr. Ronald M. LEWIS, et al.

No. 2018-C-295

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU**

PER CURIAM

Writ granted in part, denied in part. The summary judgment in favor of CHRISTUS St. Patrick Hospital is affirmed. The summary judgment in favor of Ronald M. Lewis, M.D., is reversed. Contested issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., dissents.

I would deny.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sanxay XAYADETH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30083

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen P. Hobbs, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Vanessa Pai-Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

*626Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sanxay Xayadeth appeals from the district court’s judgement and challenges the 94-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court held a joint sentencing hearing for the instant criminal conviction and Xayadeth’s violation of supervised release. At the hearing, the district court determined that an aggregate 94-month sentence was warranted, which was composed of a 57-month sentence for the criminal conviction and a consecutive low-end 37-month sentence for the supervised release violation. Without objection from Xayadeth, however, the district court elected to impose the 94-month sentence for the criminal conviction and dismiss the supervised release violation.

Xayadeth contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the 37-month portion of the sentence that the court said reflected the supervised release violation. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained its sentencing determination. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Xayadeth next contends that his 94-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Xayadeth’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Xayadeth’s significant criminal history. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Petitioners.

No. 16-1531

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2016

Decided: December 21, 2016

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf; Eric L. Prosha; John King; Aaron Lewis; Peter Rosas; Ryan Sessoms; Ray Watson, Petitioners Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court judge to recuse herself in their cases. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). The party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain relief, and he bears the burden of showing that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. See Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517; In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We conclude that Petitioners fail to make the required showing.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus, as amended, and the pending motion. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador CARRILLO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41672 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX for Plaintiff-Appellee

Camille M. Knight, Burleson, Pate & Gibson, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Salvador Carrillo-Mendoza appeals .the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) *&*(b)(1)(A). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Carrillo-Mendoza’s plea agreement or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

The validity of an appeal waiver is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. *United States v. Burns,*433 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). During his plea colloquy, Carrillo-Mendoza confirmed that he had read the plea agreement, discussed it with his attorney, and understood its terms. He confirmed that he understood the appeal waiver provision and its exceptions and assured the court that he was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal. Based on our review of the record, Carrillo-Mendoza’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary and, therefore, is enforceable. *See United States v. Higgins,*739 F.3d 733, 736-37 (5th Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(b)(l)(N).

Carrillo-Mendoza waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence “on all grounds,” except that he retained the right to challenge any sentence in excess of the statutory maximum and the right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. His current challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his below-guideline sentence does not fall within either of the limited exceptions to the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and its *357alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. Counsel for Carrillo-Mendoza is CAUTIONED that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions. *See United States v. Gaitan,*171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).

*

 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.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SHAWN MICHAEL LUTTENAUER
, Appellant,

v.

LISA DEVOS LUTTENAUER
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3654

[ March 11, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jessica Ticktin , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- DR

011630

.

Jennifer S. Carroll of Law Office of J ennifer S. Carroll , P.A., Jupiter, for appellant.

Stephanie L. Serafin and Jane Kreusler

- Walsh of Kreusler

- Walsh, Vargas & Serafin, P.A., West Pa lm Beach, and Rosanna Ferrari of Rosanna Ferrari, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### William WOLFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et. al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35846

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*386Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017

William Wolfe, Boise, ID, pro se.

Dylan A. Eaton, Parsons Behle *&*La-timer, Boise, ID. for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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 **

William Wolfe, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir! 1993). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of Wolfe’s motion for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion because Wolfe failed to establish any basis for such relief. *See id.*at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); *see also Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp.,*248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (an untimely motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) should be considered as a Rule 60(b) motion).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Wolfe’s contentions regarding the district court’s order granting summary judgment because Wolfe failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion after the district court entered judgment on July 21, 2015. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); *Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,*476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”); *Fiester v. Turner,*783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (untimely post-judgment motion does not suspend time to appeal from the judgment).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03439]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research 
Special Emphasis Panel: Conflicting F and K Grant Applications of 
NRRC.
    Date: March 4, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Nursing Research, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ming Yan, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Immunology (IMM), DPPS, Center for Scientific Review, National 
Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4205, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-0343, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e776f60636760694e636f67622060676620696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="720b131c1f1b1c15321f131b1e5c1c1b1a5c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03439 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Edward D. FARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1246

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maura J. Kiefer, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Temeka MCGHEE v. MONTGOMERY HOUSING AUTHORITY

2160486

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6395 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary 

of the Interior to include the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services in consultations regarding designations 

of critical minerals, elements, substances, and materials. 

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

•HR 6395 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Recognizing the Impor3 tance of Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REQUIRED CONSULTATION WITH THE SECRETARY 

5 OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. 

6 Paragraphs (4)(C) and (5)(A) of section 7002(c) of 

7 the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(c)(4)(C) and 

8 (5)(A)) are each amended by inserting ‘‘Health and 

9 Human Services,’’ after ‘‘Agriculture,’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6395 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the 

ments, substances, and materials. regarding designations of critical minerals, eleof Health and Human Services in consultations Secretary of the Interior to include the Secretary