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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6467 

To require a report on expenditures for contracts for advertising services, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2023 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. CLARKE of New 

York, and Ms. LEE of California) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To require a report on expenditures for contracts for 

advertising services, 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 ‘‘Federal Government 

5 Advertising Equity Accountability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON EXPENDITURES FOR CONTRACTS FOR 

7 ADVERTISING SERVICES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(a) of title 31, 

9 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6467 IH

1 ‘‘(40) the following information with respect to 

2 each executive agency: 

3 ‘‘(A) Expenditures of the executive agency 

4 for the prior fiscal year for— 

5 ‘‘(i) all contracts for advertising serv6 ices; and 

7 ‘‘(ii) contracts for the advertising 

8 services of— 

9 ‘‘(I) socially and economically 

10 disadvantaged small business concerns 

11 (as defined in section 8(a)(4) of the 

12 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

13 637(a)(4))); and 

14 ‘‘(II) women- and minority-owned 

15 businesses. 

16 ‘‘(B) Estimated expenditures of the execu17 tive agency for the fiscal year for which the 

18 budget is submitted for— 

19 ‘‘(i) all contracts for advertising serv20 ices; and 

21 ‘‘(ii) contracts for the advertising 

22 services of— 

23 ‘‘(I) socially and economically 

24 disadvantaged small business concerns 

25 (as defined in section 8(a)(4) of the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6467 IH

1 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

2 637(a)(4))); and 

3 ‘‘(II) women- and minority-owned 

4 businesses.’’. 

5 (b) APPLICATION DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 this Act shall apply to the report submitted under section 

7 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 

8 2025, and each fiscal year thereafter. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Higgins, Chief
Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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 at
the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: November 8, 2004

/s/ John L. Higgins
-------------------------------------------------
John L. Higgins
Executive Vice President, Finance and
Corporate Development and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Adrian BANDA Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11111 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 23, 2017

*386James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee •

Joe Adrian Banda, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joe Adrian Banda 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Banda has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ban-da’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 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 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                         The accompanying QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30,2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)                      The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 1, 2010 | /s/  David Fitzgerald                 |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                         | David  Fitzgerald                     |
|                         | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of the written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will beretained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Anthony Tyrone CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. MENDEZ, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Jeffrey Beard; et al., Defendants.

No. 16-16434

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*576Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 17, 2017

Anthony Tyrone Campbell, Pro Se

Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: 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 **

California state prisoner Anthony Tyrone Campbell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Campbell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1856, 1860, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory, but may not be required when “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation”); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so *properly*(so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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.
#### Willis J. Benedict, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant. William M. Bacon, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Samuel S. Bame, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Peter Cook, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Andrew M. Cole, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. August Datt, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. *677Daniel E. Dole, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Joseph J. Farthing, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Charles B. Howard, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Frederick Holland, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. William Holloway, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. The Same, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. The Same, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Robert Kelley, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. George F. Kittridge, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. George W. Long, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant. Harriet A. Noyes, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Eugene G. Peugeot, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Ansel S. Raze, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Joseph P. Smith, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Christopher Schneinder, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. A. Walter Tryon, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. Elroy West, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant. John Norris, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellant.

These cases submitted with, and a like judgment rendered, as in Acker, respondent, *v. The Same,*appellant *(supra,*p. 676).
#### Dora Bardach, Respondent, *v.*Chain Bakers, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Abraham Sherman, Appellant.

Submitted April 8, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*815
      *M. Emanuel Balt*for appellant.

*Julius Lerner*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
<PAGE>   1
                             Arthrocare CORPORATION
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Three months ended:          Six months ended:
                                          ---------------------       ---------------------
                                          June 28,      June 29,      June 28,     June 29,
                                            1997          1996          1997         1996
                                          -------       -------       -------      --------
<S>                                       <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>     
Weighted average common shares              8,806         8,675         8,795         4,641
   outstanding for the period

Common equivalent shares pursuant to
   Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83          --            --            --           3,117
                                          -------       -------       -------       -------

Shares used in per share calculation        8,806         8,675         8,795         7,758
                                          =======       =======       =======       =======

Net loss                                  $(1,989)      $(1,735)      $(4,156)      $(3,478)
                                          =======       =======       =======       =======

Net loss per share                        $ (0.23)      $ (0.20)      $ (0.47)      $ (0.45)
                                          =======       =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>
MICHAEL Z. RIVERA
,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14-2976

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 26, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. James B. Fensom
, Judge.

Michael Z. Rivera
, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
---

**Exhibit 8.1**

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The Company has the following wholly-owned subsidiaries:

- MAST INC., a Delaware corporation.
- 7070179 Canada Inc., a Canadian corporation.
- Pageant International, incorporated under the laws of the Turks &
  Caicos Islands and continued to Barbados.
- Pageant Technologies (USA) Inc., a Utah corporation and a wholly-owned
  subsidiary of Pageant International.
- Memtech International Inc, incorporated under the laws of the Bahamas.
- Memtech International (USA) Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
  wholly-owned subsidiary of Memtech International.

---
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
Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the Company) for the period ending January 2, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Potter, Vice
President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Robert P. PotterRobert P. PotterVice President and Chief Accounting Officer


A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

March 18, 2011
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                       |  | 
|---------------------- |  | 
|Date:  August 13, 2003 |  | 
|                       |  | 



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into
any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15




July 16, 2002


Mr. John Dragoon
9 Gable Ridge Road
Westborough, MA  01581

Dear John:

     Below is an addendum to your original ATG employment offer. Please review
and let me know if you have any questions.

     - The variable portion of your total compensation package is set at 50% of
     your base pay at your time of hire. Your bonus plan is pro-rated according
     to your start date.

     - In the event of a Change of Control of more than 50% of ATG's outstanding
     common shares, 50% of your unvested option holdings at that time will be
     vested. In the event of your position being eliminated within one year of
     the change of control, you would be granted a 6-month severance benefit.

     - You will have 4 weeks of vacation to be accrued on a monthly basis after
     your start date. Please work out the details of the 4th week with your
     manager.

As acceptance of this offer, please sign and fax back both the original offer
and this addendum letter to 617-386-5190.

Sincerely,                              Agreed and Accepted:


                                        ----------------------------
Laura Prendergast                       John Dragoon            Date
Director, Human Resources
Art Technology Group Inc.               Start Date:
                                                   -----------------
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

ANSOL, Inc. 

Under Contract No. NOO 178-05-D-4180 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60160 

Kevin J. Slattum, Esq. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

Los Angeles, CA 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Joseph D. Keller, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeal docketed as ASBCA No. 60160 duplicates the earlier docketed appeal 

ASBCA No. 60153. Appellant apparently submitted an original and a copy of the notice of 

appeal under separate cover. The Recorder's office docketed both filings. The latter appeal, 

ASBCA No. 60160, is administratively dismissed from the Board's docket. 

Dated: 24 September 2015 

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. 60160, Appeal of ANSOL, Inc., rendered 

in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
##### 








---



##### 



Party
    
    Date executedBanc of America Securities LLC
    
    May 28, 2003Credit Suisse First Boston LLC
    
    May 23, 2003FTN Financial
    
    May 22, 2003Goldman, Sachs & Co.
    
    July 2, 2003J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.
    
    August 5, 2004Lehman Brothers Inc.
    
    May 27, 2003Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc.
    
    June 10, 2003Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated
    
    September 26, 2006Myerberg & Company, LP
    
    June 18, 2003Suntrust Robinson Humphrey
    
    May 14, 2003




---



##### 



TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
DISCOUNT NOTES
SELLING GROUP AGREEMENT
  
 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION. The
Notes will not be obligations of, nor will they be guaranteed by, the United States of America.
 2




---



##### 



SECTION 2. OFFERING.
 SECTION 3. POSITIONING AND RECORDS.
  3




---



##### 



SECTION 4. PRICING.
  SECTION 5. SELLING CONCESSION.
 4




---



##### 



SECTION 6. SECONDARY MARKET.
 SECTION 7. TRANSMITTAL OF ORDERS AND CONFIRMATION OF SALES.
 5




---



##### 



SECTION 8. SETTLEMENT.
  6




---



##### 



SECTION 9. AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL.
 SECTION 10. WEB SITE.
   7




---



##### 



SECTION 11. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
 SECTION 12. OTHER AGREEMENTS.
 8




---



##### 



SECTION 13. MEMBER LIABILITY.
 SECTION 14. CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT.
 9




---



##### 



SECTION 15. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.
 SECTION 16. OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT.
 SECTION 17. INDEMNIFICATION.
 10




---



##### 



11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



SECTION 18. SEVERAL LIABILITLY.
 SECTION 19. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.
 13




---



##### 



SECTION 20. GOVERNING LAW.
  Very truly yours,TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITYBy:John M. HoskinsSenior Vice President and TreasurerDate:
 Accepted:Selling Group MemberSignature of Authorized Partner or OfficerName and Title of Partner or
OfficerDate:
 14




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 Authorized User Authorized UserName
    
    
    
    NameTitle
    
    
    
    TitleMailing Address
    
    
    
    Mailing AddressCity                     State                    Zip Code
    
    
    
    City                     State                    Zip CodePhone Number
    
    
    
    Phone NumberFax Number
    
    
    
    Fax NumberE-mail Address
    
    
    
    E-mail AddressCheck as appropriate:
    
    
    
    Check as appropriate:___ Viewing & Offering Authority
    
    
    
    ___ Viewing & Offering Authority___ Viewing & Confirming Authority
    
    
    
    ___ Viewing & Confirming Authority___ Viewing, Offering, & Confirming Authority
    
    
    
    ___ Viewing, Offering, & Confirming Authority
 15
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1758

In re: NICHOLAS OMAR MIDGETTE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 4:04

- cr - 00054

- FL

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 00008

- FL )

Submitted : September 18, 2018 Decided: September 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Nicholas Omar Midgette, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nicholas Omar Midgette petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for pre

- and post

- judgment interest

. He seeks an order from this court directing the district c ourt to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied the motion on April 20, 2018 , and denied reconsideration on July 10, 2018

. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Midgette ’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 proc ess. PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel RANGEL-VIEYRA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10760 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Miguel Rangel-Vieyra, Pro Se

*273Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Rangel-Vieyra 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). Ran-gel-Vieyra has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein.

The judgment reflects that Rangel-Viey-ra was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), but the addendum to the pre-sentence report, which the district court adopted, found that, though Rangel-Vieyra had a prior felony conviction, he did not have a prior aggravated felony conviction and thus that subsection (b)(1) applied. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REFORMED to show that Ran-gel-Vieyra was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2009). 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.