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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6651 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6651

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, as the ``Sergeant Kenneth 
                   E. Murphy Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SERGEANT KENNETH E. MURPHY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6651

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, as the ``Sergeant Kenneth 
                   E. Murphy Post Office Building''.
```
Exhibit 8.1




Subsidiaries of AudioCodes Ltd.




AudioCodes Inc. (incorporated in the US)




AudioCodes National Inc. (incorporated in the US)




Nuera Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. (incorporated in Singapore)




AudioCodes Singapore Pte Ltd (incorporated in Singapore)




AudioCodes Europe Ltd. (incorporated in the UK)




AudioCodes Brasil Equipamentos de Voz sobre IP Ltda (incorporated in Brazil)




AudioCodes Korea Co. Ltd. (incorporated in Korea)




AudioCodes Germany GmbH (incorporated in Germany)




AudioCodes Argentina SA (incorporated in Argentina)




AudioCodes India Private Ltd. (incorporated in India)




AudioCodes Russ Ltd. (incorporated in Russia)




AudioCodes France SAS (incorporated in France)




AudioCodes Mexico S.A. DE C.V. (incorporated in Mexico)




AudioCodes Hong Kong Limited (incorporated in Hong Kong)




AudioCodes Italy S.r.l (incorporated in Italy)




Nuera communications Inc. (incorporated in the US)




CTI Squared Ltd. (incorporated in Israel)




Natural Speech Communication Ltd. (incorporated in Israel)
**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 RFG Acquisition I Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
      F. Beston, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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.





/s/Richard
                F. Beston, Jr.Richard
                F. Beston, Jr.
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              March
                3, 2008
#### Charles Cornelis Christ TEWU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-72955

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Alejandro Garcia, Attorney, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, .Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Cornelis Christ Tewu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tewu failed to establish his experiences in Indonesia rose to the level of persecution. *See Halim v. Holder,*590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel finding past persecution where petitioner was harassed as a youth, refused medical care, arrested, and beaten by a mob of rioters); *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (harm to associates was not ‘closely tied’ to petitioner). Substantial evidence *283also supports the agency’s denial of relief where Tewu failed to establish that the government of Indonesia would be unable or unwilling to control the individuals that he fears in light of his mother’s testimony that “we have the protection of the police” and that the police protected his church and Catholic school from harm. *See Nahrvani v. Gonzales,*399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel the conclusion that the government was unable or unwilling to control petitioner’s harassers). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Tewu did not establish eligibility for asylum, he did not satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. *See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

 
 



 







 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE NOT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEPOSITS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF
A BANK AND ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. 
 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED
BY THIS INSTRUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF EXCEPT WHILE A REGISTRATION
STATEMENT RELATING THERETO IS IN EFFECT UNDER SUCH ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER SUCH ACT OR SUCH LAWS. EACH PURCHASER OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IS NOTIFIED THAT
THE SELLER MAY BE RELYING ON THE EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT PROVIDED BY RULE 144A THEREUNDER. ANY TRANSFEREE OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT BY ITS ACCEPTANCE HEREOF (1) REPRESENTS THAT IT IS A “QUALIFIED
INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” (AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT), (2) AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER, SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT EXCEPT (A) PURSUANT TO A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WHICH IS THEN
EFFECTIVE UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, (B) FOR SO LONG AS THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RESALE PURSUANT TO RULE 144A, TO A PERSON IT REASONABLY BELIEVES IS A “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” AS DEFINED IN RULE
144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT THAT PURCHASES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF A QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER TO WHOM NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE TRANSFER IS BEING MADE IN RELIANCE ON RULE 144A, (C) TO THE ISSUER OR (D) PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER
AVAILABLE EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND (3) AGREES THAT IT WILL GIVE TO EACH PERSON TO WHOM THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE TRANSFERRED A NOTICE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE EFFECT OF THIS LEGEND.

 FIRST CITIZENS BANC CORP.(THE “CORPORATION”) WILL MAIL TO THE HOLDER OF THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE A COPY OF
THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE AND OF THE OTHER CLASS OR CLASSES AND SERIES OF SHARES, IF ANY, WHICH THE CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF WRITTEN REQUEST THEREFOR.

 [ILLEGIBLE]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6637 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6637

To prohibit regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
   from applying to abortion or the coverage of abortion or abortion-
                           related services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

    Mrs. Miller of Illinois (for herself, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. 
    LaMalfa, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Self, and Mr. Harris) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
       the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on House 
   Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
   from applying to abortion or the coverage of abortion or abortion-
                           related services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Love Them Both Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT.

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Board of 
Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights may not, 
pursuant to section 105 of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (42 U.S.C. 
2000gg-3), finalize, implement, or enforce any regulation that applies 
to abortion or the coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Application of Wilbur L. Paddock, for writ of *Habeas Corpus,*etc.

*Geo. W. McElroy,*for app’lt; *M. N. Kane,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, Finch, absent

Affirming 33 N. Y. State Rep., 925.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin McCarthy the President and Chief Executive Officer of PFF Bancorp,
Inc. (the Company) do hereby 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:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o (d)) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                    
|---------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|February 8, 2008 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kevin McCarthy                                                 
|Dated            |  |  |  |  |  | Kevin McCarthy                                                     
|                 |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher WILSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60046 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 8, 2017

Susan Spears Bradley, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

George Lowrey Lucas, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Wilson appeals the 60-month sentence imposed after he pleaded *353guilty to failing to register under the Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. *See*18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The sentence was an upward variance from the advisory guideline maximum sentence of 37 months under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Wilson contends that the sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing in light of his mental problems and his history of childhood hardship and neglect.

Because Wilson does not allege any procedural error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 46, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). We “give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” *Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

The district court considéred Wilson’s arguments for leniency based on his mental problems and the distressing nature of his upbringing. But the court also took note of Wilson’s prior sex crimes, one involving a 13 year-old girl and one involving a six year-old. The court gave a thorough explanation of the § 3553(a) factors on which it was relying, particularly the need to protect the public and to deter future crimes in light of Wilson’s history and characteristics.

Wilson simply asks us to substitute his assessment of the sentencing factors for the district court’s well-reasoned assessment, which is directly contrary to the deferential review required by *Gall. See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Further, the degree of deviation was comparable to other above-guideline sentences we have affirmed. *See United States v. Herrera-Garduno,*519 F.3d 526, 531-32 (5th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases and affirming a 60-month sentence where the guideline maximum was 27 months).

The judgment is 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 *353the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 14**DISCLOSURE AND FINANCIAL ETHICS CODE**In order to codify the ethical standards to which the Board, Chief Financial Officer, otherOfficers, and certain employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) adhere, the TVA Board ofDirectors adopts the following disclosure and financial code of ethics, which shall be applicableto all Officers and Employees, as defined below. 1. All Officers and Employees shall fully comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct forEmployees of the Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. part 2635) (the “Standards”) and TVA EmploymentPractice 1, Business Ethics, including but not limited to the requirements to conduct allwork-related activities ethically and honestly, avoid actual and apparent conflicts ofinterest, and place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above privategain.  2. Each Officer and Employee shall promptly disclose to the Designated Agency EthicsOfficial any transaction or relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise toa conflict of interest or to any violation of the Standards.  3. Each Officer or Employee shall be responsible for ensuring that all information to bedisclosed to the public that he or she prepares or for which he or she is responsible,including that included in or used in the preparation of annual reports, quarterly reports,information statements, and offering circulars, is full, fair, accurate, timely, andunderstandable. An Officer or Employee shall report to the General Counsel and ChiefFinancial Officer any instances where he or she believes information under theresponsibilities of others is not fully, fairly, accurately, timely, or understandablydisclosed.  4. An Officer or Employee shall not take any action, or cause an action to be taken,to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead TVA’s external auditor.  5. Violations and suspected violations of this code shall be reported to the TVA InspectorGeneral. Failure of an Officer or Employee to abide by this code, the Standards, or otherapplicable ethics laws or standards shall subject such Officer or Employee to the range ofdisciplinary actions specified in Employment Policy No. 16, Employee Discipline,and, with respect to statutory violations, penalties specified in applicable federal laws.  6. “Officers and Employees” include those individuals who certify information contained inquarterly reports, annual reports, or information statements or who have responsibility forinternal control self-assessments. “An Officer or Employee,” “each Officer or Employee,” or“such Officer or Employee” is used when referring to conduct or responsibilities ofindividual Officers and Employees.  7. Any waivers of or changes to provisions of this code with respect to individualOfficers or Employees shall be promptly disclosed to the public, subject to the limitationson disclosure imposed by law.
#### BOYER *v.*CROWN AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING CO., INC.

Appeal and Error — Instructions—Objections—Saving Question por Review.

Objection to instructions of trial court to jury on possible damages is untimely when raised for the first time in a motion for new trial, where judge, sitting in chambers, before closing arguments, said that he intended to submit the conflicting claims of the parties concerning damages to the jury as a question of fact, defendant did not objeet, the defendant made no objection after the court had instructed the jury, and the verdict of the jury was within the limits of the court’s instructions and the evidence (GCR 1963, 516.2).

Reference for Points in Headnote

5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 623.

Appeal from Common Pleas Court of Detroit, Rodgers (Julian P., Jr.), J.

Submitted Division *4711 February 8, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 3,713.)

Decided May 28, 1968.

Complaint by Richard M. Boyer against Crown Air Conditioning & Heating Co., Inc., a Michigan corporation, for bonus accrued under an oral contract of employment. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Louis Rosensweig,*for plaintiff.

*George Gregory Mantho (Larry L. Kline,*of counsel), for defendant.

Burns, P. J.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for new trial which raised an objection to instructions on possible damages.

Defendant had two previous opportunities to apprise the court of the allegedly objectionable nature of the court’s instructions. Prior to closing oral arguments the judge, sitting in chambers, noted that plaintiff’s requested instructions were ambiguous, and consequently he clearly indicated that he intended to submit the conflicting claims concerning damages as a question of fact; defendant did not object to this proposal at that time. After the court so instructed the jury, counsel failed to make known his objection to the court’s instructions pertaining to the computation of damages as required by GCR 1963, 516.2. Defendant’s sole assignment of error was untimely.

The verdict of the jury was within the limits of the court’s instructions and the evidence.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff-appellee.

Holbrook and Peterson, JJ., concurred,
Exhibit 99.2     Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
September 20, 2001

                                 For further information contact:
                                 David M. Bradley
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                                 North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                                 825 Central Avenue
                                 Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                                 515-576-7531

                    NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES
                            STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

Fort Dodge, Iowa, September 20, 2001 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:
"FFFD") (the "Company"), the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of
Iowa, announced today that it will commence a stock repurchase program. The
program authorizes the Company to repurchase up to 100,000 shares of its
outstanding shares of common stock during the next twelve months. The
repurchases will be made from time to time, in open market transactions, at the
discretion of management.

This new program will commence immediately upon the completion of the Company's
current repurchase program which was announced on March 30, 2001, of which 7,000
shares remain to be purchased. The Company has 1,791,580 shares of common stock
currently outstanding.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $388 million in assets, as of June 30,
2001, is the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of Iowa, a federally
chartered stock savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented institution
serving Iowa through 8 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames,
Perry, Burlington and Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are insured
by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.