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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6005 

To amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, to expand the replacement of stolen EBT benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 19, 2023 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER (for himself and Mr. LAWLER) introduced the following 

bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, to 

expand the replacement of stolen EBT benefits under 

the supplemental nutrition assistance 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 ‘‘Fairness for Victims 

5 of SNAP Skimming Act of 2023’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6005 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPLACEMENT OF STOLEN EBT BENEFITS. 

2 Section 501(b)(2) of division HH of the Consolidated 

3 Appropriations Act, 2023 (Public Law 117–328) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(A) shall be equal to the amount of bene8 fits stolen from the household; and’’; 

9 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

10 the end; and 

11 (3) by striking subparagraph (C). 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1

Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:10 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad

Subject: EPA Response to EO 12866 Comments on EPA Tier 3 draft final rule (2060-AQ86)

Attachments: EPA Reponse EO_12866_ Tier 3_Final_Rule_Summary_CommentsV3_2_21_2014.docx

Chad, attached please find our response to the comments you sent on February 21. 

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. 

From: Whiteman, Chad [mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 5:22 PM 

To: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Subject: EO 12866 Comments on EPA Tier 3 draft final rule (2060-AQ86) 

Kathryn, 

 Attached are some of the EO 12866 interagency comments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (2060-AQ86). I will send any 

others as soon as possible. 

Regards, 

Chad
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 639 

To ensure due process protections of individuals in the United States against 

unlawful detention based solely on a protected characteristic. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2023 

Mr. TAKANO (for himself, Ms. TOKUDA, Ms. CHU, and Ms. MATSUI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure due process protections of individuals in the 

United States against unlawful detention based solely 

on a protected characteristic. 

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 ‘‘Korematsu-Takai Civil 

5 Liberties Protection Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DETENTION. 

7 Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 639 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub2 section (c); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(b) PROHIBITION ON DETENTION BASED ON PRO6 TECTED CHARACTERISTICS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No individual may be im8 prisoned or otherwise detained based solely on an ac9 tual or perceived protected characteristic of the indi10 vidual. 

11 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

12 ‘protected characteristic’ includes each of the fol13 lowing: 

14 ‘‘(A) Race. 

15 ‘‘(B) Ethnicity. 

16 ‘‘(C) National origin. 

17 ‘‘(D) Religion. 

18 ‘‘(E) Sex. 

19 ‘‘(F) Gender identity. 

20 ‘‘(G) Sexual orientation. 

21 ‘‘(H) Disability. 

22 ‘‘(I) Any additional characteristic that the 

23 Attorney General determines to be a protected 

24 characteristic. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 639 IH

1 ‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

2 this subsection shall be construed to allow the Attor3 ney General to remove a characteristic described in 

4 subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (2) 

5 from the definition of the term ‘protected char6 acteristic’ under this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Joseph R. EGLAND, Petitioner v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; P.C. Pfeiffer Company, Incorporated, Respondents

No. 16-60494 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

*235Steven C. Barkley, Beaumont, TX, for Petitioner

Sarah Marie Hurley, Esq., Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Mark A. Rein-halter, Counsel,' U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, David Widener, ESA/OWCP Longshore Division, Houston, TX, for Respondent Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

James M. Davin, Esq., Julian & Seele, P.C., Houston, TX, for Respondent P.C. Pfeiffer Company, Incorporated

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. ■

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph R. Egland filed a claim against P.C. Pfeiffer Company (“P.C. Pfeiffer”) under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901*et seq.*(“the Act”). Egland alleged that, in violation of Section 49 of the Act, P.C. Pfeiffer refused to allow him to return to work because he had previously filed a compensation claim. *See*33 U.S.C. § 948a (prohibiting any employer from “discharging] or in any other manner discriminating] against an employee as to his employment because such employee has claimed or attempted to claim compensation from such employer”). Egland appeals the Benefits Review Board’s (“BRB”) decision affirming the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of Egland’s claim. We AFFIRM the decision of the BRB.

“[0]nce the BRB affirms an order of the ALJ, we need only inquire whether the BRB ‘correctly concluded that the ALJ’s order was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the law.’ ” *La. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Dir., OWCP,*614 F.3d 179, 185 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting *Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP,*991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993)). The'ALJ “is entitled to consider all credibility inferences [and the ALJ’s] selection among inferences is conclusive if supported by the evidence and the law.” *Id.*(alterations in original) (quoting *Mendoza v. Marine Pers. Co.,*46 F.3d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 1995)).

The ALJ weighed the evidence and determined that Egland set forth a *prima facie*case and that he was entitled to a presumption of discrimination under Section 49. But the ALJ then determined that P.C. Pfeiffer rebutted Egland’s presumption of discrimination and that Egland failed to meet the burden of persuasion for his claim. Egland argues that P.C. Pfeiffer did not rebut his presumption of discrimination. Viewing the record as a whole, we disagree. The BRB held that “[substantial evidence supports the [ALJ’s] conclusion that claimant did not establish that employer’s action in not allowing claimant to return to work was motivated by claimant’s filing a compensation claim.” Finding no error, we AFFIRM the decision of the BRB.

*

 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 32.1

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 Blockbuster Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 2, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bruce W. Lewis, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 12, 2011



/s/ Bruce W. LewisBruce W. Lewis Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Liberate Technologies, that this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of Liberate Technologies.

|Date: September 16, 2003 |  | /s/ David LockwoodDavid Lockwood Chief Executive Officer  
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 16, 2003 |  | /s/ Gregory S. WoodGregory S. Wood Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

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 Nettel Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Nguyen, President and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Nguyen Michael NguyenPresident and Chief Financial Officer 
September 24, 2008



1

---
Lina L. KELSO v. Michael D. KELSO

2160137

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,212)
<INVENTORY>                                        876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,022
<PP&E>                                           7,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,853
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,557
<SALES>                                          5,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,043
<CGS>                                            3,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,739)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,739)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.20)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The following Financial Data Schedule contains standard data for the nine months
ended  October  5,  2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            OCT-05-2000
<CASH>                                         454
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              211,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,513
<INVENTORY>                                 41,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           258,651
<PP&E>                                      31,112
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             369,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      175,372
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       126
<OTHER-SE>                                 171,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               369,573
<SALES>                                    679,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           679,399
<CGS>                                      589,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              589,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               292
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             36,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                14,517
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         22,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                22,078
<EPS-BASIC>                                1.830
<EPS-DILUTED>                                1.790


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Geraldine D Snell

2577 Titus Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68112

RE: SAID: 40505

2577 Titus Avenue Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

Dear Owner/Resident:

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 2577 Titus Avenue. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization.If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency

Enclosures Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment

.EGEND: H 

### - N 

### - P 

### - 01 

### - 40505 

## I Samples Analyzed

Sample Number Lead Loading StructureIFeature (Window, siding, porch, etc.) Substrate (Wood, concrete etc ) Area

mglcd

mglcm'

ft'

ft'

mglcm'

mglcm' ti'

mglcm' fl'
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH and Corvel Corporation, Appellants, v. William GEDDES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5046

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Date of Accident: December 12, 2011 April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Dennis Eugene JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN MISSOURI COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellees.

No. 18398.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1966.

*185Dennis Eugene Johnson, Jr., pro se.

F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Clifford M. Spottsville, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.

Before VOGEL, Chief Judge, MATTHES, Circuit Judge, and DUNCAN, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in forma pauperis, from an order of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, dismissing appellant’s petition for an injunction, and for damages “for the denial of equal protection of the laws”, filed February 21, 1966.

Appellant is now confined in the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri.

Appellant alleges in his petition that he was a follower of the “Honorable Elijah Muhammad”, and that he was deprived of his right to attend Muslim services; he also sought $100,000.00 damages against appellees for alleged violation of his constitutional rights.

The petition was dismissed without a hearing by Judge William R. Collinson, 258 F.Supp. 669. We have read the record and Judge Collinson’s Order of Dismissal, where the facts are fully set out. We concur in his conclusions disposing of the question of the alleged violation of petitioner’s religious rights, and his ruling that petitioner had no cause of action therefor under § 1983, Title 42 U.S.C. We affirm.

We are informed by the appellees that the Bureau of Prisons, in April 1966, (after the petition had been dismissed) changed its regulation, and that inmates of the Medical Center are now permitted to change their religious affiliations; that on May 10, 1966, a memorandum was presented to the appellant informing him that under the new policy, he was at liberty to write to Elijah Muhammad requesting acceptance as a member of his religious group, and that upon receipt of a letter indicating that he had been officially accepted as a member of the Islamic faith, a pass would be issued to him to attend such meetings; and that on June 7, 1966, the appellant was officially listed in the records of the institution as a member of the Islamic faith.

Therefore, the question of the denial of the right to participate in Islamic religious services is no longer an issue, and is moot.
#### Sean C. MCWHINNEY; Connie Pedersen, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-72590

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Steven Ray Mather, Mather Law Corporation, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants.

Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Richard Far-ber, Esquire, Supervisory, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/appellate *424Section, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

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: **

Sean C. MeWhinney and Connie Peder-sen (“taxpayers”) appeal from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their petition for rede-termination challenging the notice of defi-cien'cy for the tax years 2011 and 2012. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *Gorospe v. Comm’r,*451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly dismissed taxpayers’ petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because taxpayers failed to file their petition within ninety days from the mailing of the notice of deficiency. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (petition for redetermination must be filed “[wjithin 90 days ... after the notice of deficiency ... is mailed”); *Correia v. Comm’r,*58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The timely filing of a-petition for redetermination is a jurisdictional requirement.”).

Contrary to taxpayers’ contention, the notice of deficiency was valid because it was sent to taxpayers’ last known address. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6212(b)(1); *Williams v. Comm’r,*935 F.2d 1066, 1067 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A notice of deficiency is valid if it is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address even if it is not received by the taxpayer.”); *see also United States v. Zolla,*724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that the last known address is the one “on [the taxpayer’s] most recent return, unless the taxpayer communicates to the IRS clear and concise notice of a change of address”). We reject as without merit taxpayers’ contentions that the notice of deficiency was not valid because it was not mailed to their power of attorney, and that the issuance of the deficiency notice deprived taxpayers of their day in court.

AFFIRMED.

**

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