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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6635 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6635

 To prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from treating 
   pregnancy as an illness for purposes of approving abortion drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

    Mrs. Miller of Illinois (for herself, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. 
  LaMalfa, and Ms. Boebert) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from treating 
   pregnancy as an illness for purposes of approving abortion drugs.

    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 ``Pregnancy Is Not an Illness Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST TREATING PREGNANCY AS ILLNESS FOR PURPOSES 
              OF APPROVING ABORTION DRUGS.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Department of Health and Human Services, 
including the Food and Drug Administration, shall not treat pregnancy 
as an illness for purposes of--
            (1) approving any abortion drug under section 505 of the 
        Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355); or
            (2) imposing or maintaining any risk evaluation and 
        mitigation strategy for an abortion drug under section 505-1 of 
        such Act (21 U.S.C. 355-1).
    (b) Nullification of Approvals in Effect.--
            (1) In general.--Any prohibited approval of an abortion 
        drug is hereby nullified.
            (2) Prohibited approval defined.--In this subsection, the 
        term ``prohibited approval of an abortion drug''--
                    (A) means any approval of an abortion drug under 
                section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
                (21 U.S.C. 355) that relied in whole or in part on the 
                treatment of pregnancy as illness; and
                    (B) includes the approval of mifepristone in effect 
                under such section 505 on the day before the date of 
                enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James R. Lavelle, 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, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. Lavelle                             
|                   |  |     |  | James R. Lavelle                                 
|                   |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



23
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6460 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6460

 To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from issuing, 
    finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any rule or guidance to 
facilitate abortions or access to abortions for an unaccompanied alien 
                                 child.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 21, 2023

Mr. Brecheen (for himself, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. 
  Good of Virginia, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Duncan, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, 
   Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Weber of Texas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from issuing, 
    finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any rule or guidance to 
facilitate abortions or access to abortions for an unaccompanied alien 
                                 child.

    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 ``No Taxpayer Abortions for 
Unaccompanied Minors Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON RULES TO FACILITATE ABORTIONS OR ACCESS TO 
              ABORTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services may not issue, finalize, 
implement, or enforce any rule or guidance to facilitate abortions or 
access to abortions (including expenses for travel or lodging for the 
purpose of obtaining an abortion) for an unaccompanied alien child.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``unaccompanied alien 
child'' has the meaning given such term in section 462(g)(2) of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2)).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998             JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,345                  30,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,732                   2,027
<INVENTORY>                                     38,491                  35,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,611                  68,124
<PP&E>                                          70,824                  69,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,205                  30,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,552                 130,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,168                  21,443
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           111                      57
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,664                  84,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,552                 130,140
<SALES>                                        118,302                 113,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               118,302                 113,543
<CGS>                                           88,681                  85,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,566                 101,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 332                     665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,404                  11,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,348                   4,636
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,056                   6,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,056                   6,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71                     .61<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69                     .59<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The earnings per share amounts have been restated to comply with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings per Share."
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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 fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John F. Antioco, 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: March 15, 2006



/S/    JOHN F.
ANTIOCOJohn F. Antioco Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### James E. Conor, Appellant, *v.*John Dempsey, Respondent.

(Argued April 18, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

Plaintiff agreed to manufacture and deliver to defendant two engravers’ stamping presses, and to warrant that they would do defendant’s work without breaking. The presses were manufactured and delivered under the contract, and were accepted and paid for by defendant. Subsequently they were broken while being used in defendant’s business.

In an action to recover the purchase-price of other presses, defendant set up the breach of warranty as a counter-claim. *Held,*that the acceptance and retention of the presses by defendant did not bar him of the right to the counter-claim, and defendant was entitled to his damages, to wit, the difference in value between presses that would do defendant’s work and these broken ones.

*D. G. Gdl/oin*for the appellant.

*Samuel A. Hoyes*for the respondent.

Gboveb, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance. Folgeb, Allen and Rapadlo, JJ., concur; Chuboh, Oh. J., and Peckham, J., dissent.

(There was a question in the case as to the rejection of evidence. The court held the rejection error, bnt the majority held that the plaintiff could not have been injured thereby. The dissent was to this view.)
#### Sayiden Hussein MOHAMED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLINGER, Nurse Supervisor; Stewart Andrews, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35710

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 6, 2017

Sayiden Hussein Mohamed, Pro Se

Mikolaj T. Tempski, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, Everett, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Bellinger

Thomas Fain, Esquire, Attorney, Edward J. Hynes, Esquire, Fain Anderson VanDerhoef Rosendahl O’Halloran Spillane, PLLC, Seattle, WA, Jennifer D. Koh, Attorney, Favros Law, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Stewart Andrews, M.D.

*538Before: 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 **

Sayiden Hussein Mohamed, a former inmate at Snohomish County Jail, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co.,*389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because under any potentially applicable standard, Mohamed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mohamed’s health. *See Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1057-58 (neither a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); *Lolli v. County of Orange,*351 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee’s claim of medical deliberate indifference is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but same standards apply); *see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of Fourteénth Amendment failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee).

Denial of Mohamed’s motion for appointment of counsel was proper because ftfo-hamed failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement for appointment of counsel).

We reject Mohamed’s contention that he should have been appointed an interpreter because Mohamed did not make such a request before the district court.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class           Interest         Principal      Losses              Balance
<S>               <C>              <C>             <C>               <C>
A            22515796.61      142356166.59           0        4979385056.29
CE            23739755.1                 0           0          382415198.5
M1            2469305.95                 0           0            519248000
M2            1612886.95                 0           0            312248000
M3            1599081.29                 0           0            238584000
P             1485619.74                 0           0                  800
RI                     0                 0           0                    0
RII                    0                 0           0                    0
RIII                   0                 0           0                    0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Trend-Following FuturesFund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”) I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 12, 2010 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
| By                           |  /s/ BARBRA  E. KOCSIS |
|                         | Barbra  E. Kocsis |
|                         | Chief  Financial Officer |
|                         | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                              |  |  |

 

----
#### Richard SCROGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; Warden Winn Correctional Center; Captain Ward, Corrections Captain, Winn Correctional Center; Chief Lucas, Chief of Security, Winn Correctional Center; Gloria Stokes, Case Manager, Winn Correctional Center; Captain Bobby Toler; K. Bradford, Case Manager, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-30302 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 14, 2017

Richard Scroggins, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Scroggins, Louisiana prisoner # 101395, appeals the dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action he filed against Gloria Stokes and other defendants associated with Winn Correctional Center. He alleged that some of the defendants used excessive force against him after Stokes accused him of assaulting her, and that other defendants threatened to retaliate against him if he did not withdraw a grievance against Stokes.

The district court dismissed the action as malicious under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915*&*1915A after concluding that the action was indistinguishable from a prior Section 1983 action Scroggins filed against these defendants and others arising from the same series of occurrences. We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. *See Bailey v, Johnson,*846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).

*344A prisoner’s civil rights action is subject to dismissal as malicious if it repeats virtually identical claims based on a common series of occurrences. *Bailey,*846 F.2d at 1021; §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)©, (ii) & 1915A(b)(l). Scroggins’s action is essentially identical to an earlier action that was dismissed as frivolous. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the instant action as malicious. Because the instant appeal is without arguable merit, it is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint as malicious and this court’s dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of Section 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s dismissal of Scroggins’s prior action as frivolous also counts as a strike. Thus, Scrog-gins has accumulated three strikes and is now BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal that is filed while he is incarcerated or detained unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g). Scroggins is also WARNED that future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; Section 1915(g) SANCTION BAR IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Title Guarantee and Trust Company, as Executor and Trustee under the Will of Auguste Schnitzler, Deceased; Thomas B. Dyett, Special Guardian for Joachim Heinrich Schmidt, an Infant, Appellant. Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Executor and Trustee, et al., Respondents.

Argued May 19, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*886
      *James N. Vaughan*for, and *Thomas B. Dyett*in person as, Special Guardian, appellant.

*Louis J. Merrell*and *Louis J. Moss*for Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Executor and Trustee, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing briefs payable out of the estate, on the authority of *Matter of West*(289 N. Y. 423). No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10430-10431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03928]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Charter 
Renewal

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Charter for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Committee (TAP), 
has been renewed for a two-year period beginning February 16, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Terrie English, Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel Director, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e3a0f161e0f170b1c2f0a18010d0f0d173e0f000b022e071c1d40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7622170e06170f1304371200191517150f261718131a361f040558111900">[email protected]</span></a>. For questions about 
TAP, call the TAP toll-free number, 1-888-912-1227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given under section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), 
and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury to announce the 
charter renewal for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Committee (TAP). The 
TAP purpose is to provide a taxpayer perspective to the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) on critical tax administrative programs. The TAP 
shall provide listening opportunities for taxpayers to independently 
identify suggestions or comments to improve IRS customer service 
through grass roots outreach efforts, and have direct access to elevate 
improvement recommendations to the appropriate operating divisions. The 
TAP shall also serve as a focus group to provide suggestions and/or 
recommendations directly to IRS management on IRS strategic 
initiatives.


[[Page 10431]]


    Dated: February 18, 2022.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2022-03928 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime Alonzo RETANA-LERMAN, also known as Jaime Alonzo Retana-Lerma, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-50190 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 27, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western *248District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jaime Alonzo Retana-Lerman, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jaime Alonzo Retana-Lerman 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). Retana-Lerman has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We agree 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.