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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6387 

To modify the minimum allocation requirement for the emergency solutions 

grants program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To modify the minimum allocation requirement for the 

emergency solutions grants program. 

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 ‘‘Local Solutions to End 

5 Homelessness Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MINIMUM ALLOCATION REQUIREMENT FOR EMER7 GENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM. 

8 Section 414(b) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless As9 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11373(b)) is amended to read as 

10 follows: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6387 IH

1 ‘‘(b) MINIMUM ALLOCATION REQUIREMENT.— 

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If, under the allocation 

3 provisions applicable under this subtitle, a metropoli4 tan city or an urban county would receive a grant 

5 of less than .05 percent of the amounts appropriated 

6 under section 408 and made available to carry out 

7 this subtitle for any fiscal year, such amount shall 

8 be reallocated to the State in which the metropolitan 

9 city or urban county, as applicable, is located, except 

10 that— 

11 ‘‘(A) in the case of the metropolitan city, 

12 such amount shall be reallocated to the urban 

13 county in which the metropolitan city is located, 

14 if the urban county— 

15 ‘‘(i) has previously received and ad16 ministered assistance under this section; 

17 and 

18 ‘‘(ii) agrees to receive such amount; 

19 and 

20 ‘‘(B) in the case of the urban county, such 

21 amount shall be provided to the urban county 

22 if the urban county has previously received and 

23 administered assistance under this section. 

24 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph 

25 (1), a metropolitan city shall receive the grant 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6387 IH

1 amount described such paragraph if the metropoli2 tan city— 

3 ‘‘(A) is located in a State that does not 

4 have counties as local governments; 

5 ‘‘(B) has a population greater than 40,000 

6 but less than 50,000 as used in determining the 

7 fiscal year 1987 community development block 

8 grant program allocation; and 

9 ‘‘(C) was allocated in excess of $1,000,000 

10 in community development block grant funds in 

11 fiscal year 1987. 

12 ‘‘(3) AMOUNTS REALLOCATED TO URBAN COUN13 TIES.—An urban county that receives amounts re14 allocated under paragraph (1)(A) shall expend those 

15 amounts for the benefit of metropolitan cities lo16 cated in the urban county.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Vasile RACHITA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72671

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 * San Francisco, California

Filed November 21, 2016

*923Seth L. Reszko, Esquire, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.

Nehal Kamani, Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, Suzanne N. Nardone, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The record does not compel reversal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that Vasile Rachita failed to establish a prior admission to the United States and that he is therefore ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).

Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination. Rachita has not shown that his testimony described the port of entry at which he was allegedly admitted to the United States with detail, and vague testimony may support an adverse credibility determination. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, Rachita fails to identify evidence that corroborates his account of how he entered the United States from Canada. As the BIA correctly observed, the choir photo that he submitted does not indicate when and where it was taken. The other documents Rachita submitted may corroborate that he was in Canada in 1998, but they do not corroborate the circumstances of his entry into the United States. Corroboration may be required for vague testimony regardless of whether the REAL ID Act applies, *see Sidhu v. INS,*220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (pre-REAL ID Act), so we need not decide whether the BIA improperly relied on the Act’s corroboration standards.

We do not reach Rachita’s challenge to the immigration judge’s finding that fa-cilita provided inconsistent testimony. The BIA declined to address the issue because other grounds independently supported the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination, and our review is limited to the grounds on which the BIA relied. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

**

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1
          - [TD 9960]
          - RIN 1545-BO59

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Correcting amendment.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains corrections to the final regulations Treasury Decision 9960 published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Tuesday, January 25, 2022. The final regulations regarding the treatment of domestic partnerships for purposes of determining amounts included in the gross income of their partners with respect to foreign corporations.                    

# DATES:

                        These corrections are effective on                         *February 22, 2022,*                         and applicable on or after January 25, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward J. Tracy at (202) 317-6934 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The final regulations (TD 9960) subject to this correction are issued under section 951 of the Internal Revenue Code.

## Need for Correction

As published on January 25, 2022 (87 FR 3648), the final regulations (TD 9960) contain errors that need to be corrected.

# List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

      - Income taxes
      - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

## Correction of Publication

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

# PART 1—INCOME TAXES

**Paragraph 1.**                         The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:                    

Authority:26 U.S.C. 7805  * * * 

§ 1.958-1 

**Par. 2.**                         Section 1.958-1(d)(3)(iii)(B)(                        *3*) is corrected by removing the word “note” and adding the word “account” in its place.                    

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).

[FR Doc. 2022-03611 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00
-6862
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ELTON STOTTS, a/k/a Sugarbear, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-95-49) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Elton Stotts, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Elton Stotts seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and dismissing it for failing to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stotts , No. CR-95-49 (E.D. Va. filed May 17, 2000; entered May 18, 2000); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Letter from the University of Michigan



 Exhibit 10.4(H) 
 September 4, 2008 
 Martin H. Goldstein 

SVP, Corporate Development 
 OncoMed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 800 Chesapeake Drive 
 Redwood City, CA 94063-4748 
 RE: License Agreement with OncoMed Pharmaceuticals (UM 1819)

 Dear Mr. Goldstein: 
 From our
recent conversations, we understand that potential investors in OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Onco”) have raised questions regarding the references to Howard Hughes Medical Institute (“HHMI”) in the August 5, 2001 License
Agreement between University of Michigan (“UM”) and Cancer Stem Cell Genomics, Inc. (the predecessor in interest of Onco), as amended (the “License”). As previously indicated by telephone, UM confirms: 

 

	1.	No rights to intellectual property owned or controlled by HHMI are conveyed pursuant to the License. 


 

	2.	Without limiting the foregoing, no rights to “Subject Property”, as that term is defined in a certain Collaboration Agreement between UM and HHMI dated
August 15, 2000, are conveyed pursuant to the License and, as a result, HHMI approval of the License was not required. 

  

	3.	Notwithstanding Section 4.7.1.6 of the License, no shares of Onco stock due UM pursuant to the License have been, or are required to be, transferred to HHMI nor
will HHMI receive any portion of royalties paid by Onco under the License. 

 Please feel free to call me if you have any further
questions. 
 Sincerely, 
 /s/ Robin
L. Rasor 
 Robin L. Rasor 
 Director of
Licensing
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Bales Construction Co. Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62305

)

Under Contract No. W911S7-14-D-0020 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Stephen M. Sorett, Esq.

Joseph L. Fuller, Esq.

 Kutak Rock LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Susan Kim, JA

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: July 8, 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62305, Appeal of Bales Construction 

Co. Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 9, 2020

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Janice MORVANT; Marcus P. Morvant, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-30147 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 17, 2017

Rick A. Caballero, Esq., Caballero & Adams, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Andolyn Reeves Johnson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given in the magistrate judge’s report. The Plaintiff failed to file a claim within two years given notice of an incident and a claim for money damages in a sum certain. This requirement has been repeated by this court several times. Despite Plaintiffs contention here, the regulation repeats the same requirement. The argument that the “sum certain” was not known within two years does not satisfy the legal requirement.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6119 

To require the Secretary of State to notify Congress when the security 

clearances of certain senior members of the Department of State are 

suspended or revoked, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2023 

Mr. MAST (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, and Mr. ISSA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of State to notify Congress when 

the security clearances of certain senior members of the 

Department of State are suspended or revoked, 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 ‘‘State Department Se5 curity Notification Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6119 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF 

2 CLEARANCES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each covered offi4 cial whose security clearance is suspended or revoked, the 

5 Secretary of State shall— 

6 (1) submit to the appropriate congressional 

7 committees a notification, not later than 15 days 

8 after the suspension or revocation of such clearance, 

9 that identifies the individual whose clearance was so 

10 suspended or revoked; and 

11 (2) brief the appropriate congressional commit12 tees not later than 30 days after such suspension or 

13 revocation on— 

14 (A) the documentation notifying the indi15 vidual of the suspension or revocation of the 

16 clearance; and 

17 (B) the present employment status and 

18 conditions of such individual. 

19 (b) COVERED OFFICIAL DEFINED.—For purposes of 

20 the notification requirement under subsection (a), the 

21 term ‘‘covered official’’ means any of the following: 

22 (1) Any individual holding a position at or high23 er than the level of Assistant Secretary or its equiva24 lent in the Department of State. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6119 IH

1 (2) Any individual holding the position of chief 

2 of mission or principal officer at any diplomatic or 

3 consular post. 

4 (3) Any individual holding the rank and status 

5 of an ambassador or otherwise holding a position 

6 that reports directly to the Secretary of State, such 

7 as a special envoy. 

8 (c) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DE9 FINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘appro10 priate congressional committees’’ means the Committee on 

11 Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 

12 Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                       Jurisdiction
     Subsidiary                                      of Incorporation
     ------------------------------------            ----------------

     LimToo, Inc.                                    Delaware

     American Factoring, Inc.                        Nevada

     Floret, LLC                                     Ohio

     Limited Too Store Planning, Inc.                Ohio

     Limited Too Purchasing, Inc.                    Ohio

     Limited Too Catalog Production, Inc.            Ohio

     Limited Too Catalog, LLC                        Ohio

     Limited Too Web, LLC                            Ohio

     Limited Too Creative Design, Inc.               Ohio

     Mish Mash, LLC                                  Ohio






                                      70
Order entered December 31, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00924-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.M. AND A.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-08-20402

ORDER

On October 23, 2014, the court reporter informed the Court that she had not received a 

request to prepare the reporter’s record. In a letter dated October 27, 2014, the Court instructed 

appellant to provide this Court, within ten days, with notice that he had requested the reporter’s 

record and verification that payment arrangements had been made. We cautioned appellant that,

if the required documentation was not received within the time requested, we may order the 

appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed the 

required documentation. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s 

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Summary of Director Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.30 
 SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 Effective April 1, 2012, non-employee
directors receive the following cash compensation for service on the Boards of Directors of Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. and Hudson City Savings Bank and the respective Board committees: 

 

					
	 Non-Employee Board Member Compensation
	  			
	 Annual Retainer
	  	$	50,000	  
	 Meeting Fee
	  	 	1,500	  
	 Lead Independent Director Compensation
	  			
	 Additional Annual Retainer
	  	 	25,000	  
	 Non-Employee Committee Member Compensation
	  			
	 Meeting Fee
	  	 	1,500	  
	 Committee Chair Additional Annual Retainers
	  			
	 Audit Committee
	  	 	15,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	 	15,000	  
	 Nominating & Governance Committee
	  	 	10,000	  
	 Risk Committee
	  	$	15,000	  

 The cash compensation described above represents combined compensation for non-employee directors’ service to both
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. and Hudson City Savings Bank. Compensation is paid by the Bank and Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. reimburses the Bank for a part of the compensation paid to each director that is proportionate to the amount of time which he or
she devotes to the performance of services for the Company. A single fee is paid when the Company and the Bank hold joint board or committee meetings. The lead independent director receives the same fees as other non-employee directors for
attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors, committee meetings and executive sessions of the independent directors.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19588-19589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0045]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting a system of 
records notice in its existing inventory of record

[[Page 19589]]

systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The notice is 
DGC 16, Political Appointment Vetting Files (March 16, 1995, 60 FR 
14273).

DATES: Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2014. This 
proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the 
comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center 
Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (571) 372-0461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the 
Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Web site at http://dpclo.defense.gov/.
    The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) 
of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires 
the submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Deletion:
DGC 16
    Political Appointment Vetting Files (March 16, 1995, 60 FR 14273).

Reason:
    Based on a recent review of DGC 16, Political Appointment Vetting 
Files, it was determined that this system of records is covered under 
DGC 20, DoD Presidential Appointee Vetting Files. DGC 16 is duplicative 
and can therefore be deleted.
[FR Doc. 2014-07856 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
Scott A. HUMINSKI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TOWN OF GILBERT, AZ, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0804

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Hamlin Babcock, Respondent, *v.*William L. Hermance, Appellant.

(Argued January 5, 1872;

decided May term, 1872.)

Action for dissolution of a co-partnership and an accounting (decided principally upon the facts.)

The complaint alleged that the defendant abandoned the co-partnership business, and that thereby the co-partnership was dissolved as to the further prosecution of the business. Defendant claimed that complaint showed a dissolution before the commencement of the action, and that a decree dissolving it was error. *Held,*that, conceding defendant’s construction of complaint, this action was an appropriate remedy for a final adjustment of the partnership concerns; that the clause in the decree dissolving, could by no possibility harm defendant, and was no ground for reversal.

*684
      *Sidney*<6 *Ha/rris*for the appellant.

*Addison Brown*for the respondent.

Gray, 0., reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Darryl RIGGINS v. STATE

CR-16-0124

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.