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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6858 

To amend the Social Security Act to limit the recovery of overpayments 

under titles II and XVI to a ten-year period. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2023 

Mr. GALLEGO (for himself and Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Social Security Act to limit the recovery of 

overpayments under titles II and XVI to a ten-year period. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Over5 payment Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS. 

7 (a) TITLE II LIMITATION.—Section 204 of the Social 

8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6858 IH

1 ‘‘(h) In any case in which more than the correct 

2 amount of payment has been made, there shall be no ad3 justment of payments to, or recovery by the United States 

4 from, any person of an overpayment that occurred 10 or 

5 more years prior to the date on which the Commissioner 

6 finds that more than the correct amount of payment has 

7 been made to such person.’’. 

8 (b) TITLE XVI LIMITATION.—Section 1631(b) of 

9 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(b)) is amended by adding at 

10 the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(9) In any case in which more than the correct 

12 amount of payment has been made, there shall be no ad13 justment of payments to, or recovery by the United States 

14 from, any person of an overpayment that occurred 10 or 

15 more years prior to the date on which the Commissioner 

16 finds that more than the correct amount of payment has 

17 been made to such person.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT32.2**

** **

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)	Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:November 14, 2011

 

*/s/Allen E. Kahn*

		 

AllenE. Kahn

ChiefFinancial Officer

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will beretained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kevin Anthony MACGREGOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16625

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Kevin Anthony MacGregor, Pro Se

William P. Buranich, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kevin Anthony MacGregor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion an order setting aside entry of default. *United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle,*615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding good cause for setting aside entry of default against defendant Dr. Martin. *See id.*at 1091 (requirements for setting aside entry of default); *Brady v. United States,*211 F.3d 499, 504 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court’s discretion is “especially broad” when setting aside entry of default).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying MacGregor’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order setting aside entry of default because MacGregor failed to establish any grounds for relief. *See Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel,*882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th *512Cir. 1989) (“[A] trial court has discretion to reconsider its prior, non-final decisions.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, including the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of MacGre-gor’s action, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

MacGregor’s requests for judicial notice and “emergency motion” (Docket Entry Nos. 17, 18 and 19) are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Europos Sąjungos C 34/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0960
  doi:10.3000/19770960.C_2014.034.lit |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 34 |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir prane_imai | 57 tomas2014m. vasario 5d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

doi:10.3000/19770960.C_2014.034.lit

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 34

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir prane_imai

57 tomas2014m. vasario 5d.

---

| Prane_imo Nr. | Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Nuomonės |
| | ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS |
| | Europos Parlamentas |
| 2014/C 034/01 | Sprendimas | 1 |

Prane_imo Nr.

Turinys

Puslapis

V   Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Parlamentas

2014/C 034/01

Sprendimas

1

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

V Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Parlamentas

| 5.2.2014 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 34/1

---

SPRENDIMAS

2014/C 34/01

EUROPOS PARLAMENTO GENERALINIS SEKRETORIUS,

Atsižvelgdamas į Tarybos reglamentą (EEB, Euratomas, EAPB) Nr. 259/68 (1), iš dalies pakeistą Tarybos reglamentu (EB, Euratomas) Nr. 723/2004 (2), su paskutiniais pakeitimais, padarytais 2010 m. lapkričio 24 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentu (ES, Euratomas) Nr. 1080/2010, kuriuo iš dalies keičiami Europos Bendrijų pareigūnų tarnybos nuostatai ir kitų Europos Bendrijų tarnautojų įdarbinimo sąlygos (3), ypač į Tarnybos nuostatų 30 straipsnį,

Atsižvelgdamas į Biuro 2004 m. gegužės 3 d. sprendimą dėl skiriančiosios tarnybos (ST) ir darbo sutartis sudaryti įgaliotos tarnybos (DSST) įgaliojimų suteikimo su paskutiniais pakeitimais, Biuro padarytais 2009 m. gegužės 4 d.,

Atsižvelgdamas į tai, kad 2013 m. gruodžio 31 d. baigia galioti šie Europos Parlamento rezervo sąrašai:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S ir PE/121/S,

kadangi Jungtinis komitetas pagal Tarnybos nuostatų 10a straipsnį pakvietė pateikti nuomonę per 15 darbo dienų,

NUSPRENDĖ:

1 straipsnis

Rezervo sąrašų:

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S ir PE/121/S

galiojimo laikas pratęsiamas iki 2014 m. gruodžio 31 d.

2 straipsnis

Rezervo sąrašų:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08 ir PE/119/S

galiojimo laikas nepratęsiamas.

Priimta Liuksemburge, 2013 m. gruodžio 20 d.

Klaus WELLE

Generalinis sekretorius

---

(1)  OL L 56, 1968 3 4, p. 1.

1

(2)  OL L 124, 2004 4 27, p. 1.

2

(3)  OL L 311, 2010 11 26, p. 1.

3

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Blue Baking Co., Inc., Appellant.

Argued June 10, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*526
      *Samuel D. Goldstein*for appellant.

*Thomas CradocJc Hughes, Acting District Attorney (Fred J. Loughran*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ. Taking no part; Lewis, J.
#### David J. LAUX; Tara K. Laux, a/k/a Tara K. Long, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; James W. Patterson, Director, Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1051

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: July 10, 2017

David J. Laux, Tara K. Laux, Appellants Pro Se. Christopher Anthony Costa, Sara Grossman Silverman, Assistant County Attorneys, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David J. Laux and Tara K. Laux appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Laux v. Bd. of Supervisors of*
      *733
      *Fairfax Cnty.,*No. 1:16-cv-01260-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2017). 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 process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10214

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 12, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed September 19, 2017

Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Saul M. Huerta, Attorney, The Huerta Law Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Eduardo Sosa challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that Border Patrol Agents lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.

An officer may conduct an investigatory stop of a person or vehicle if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity “may be afoot.” *United States v. Arvizu,*534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (quoting *United States v. Sokolow,*490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)). To determine whether a stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, we look at the totality of the circumstances. *Id.*In the context of border patrol stops, the factors we consider include: “(1) characteristics of the area; (2) proximity to the border; (3) usual patterns of traffic and time of day; (4) previous alien or drug smuggling in the area; (5) behavior of the driver, including ‘obvious attempts to evade officers’; (6) appearance or behavior of passengers; (7) model and appearance of the vehicle; and, (8) officer experience.” *United States v. Garcia-Barron,*116 F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting *United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,*422 U.S. 873, 885, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). In addition, “the notoriety of a road as an alien smuggling route ... [is] a relevant factor supporting reasonable suspicion.” *United States v. Palos-Marquez,*591 F.3d 1272, 1277 (9th Cir. 2010).

Here, the behavior of the men whom the car picked up, the íocation and timing of the pickup, and the movement of the car, taken together, demonstrate that the agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ffge_ex102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2




 


OPTION TO CONVERT COMMON STOCK INTO


PREFERRED STOCK


 


AT FUTURE DATE







Effective this 16th day of February, 2012, Tangiers Investors, LP, (“Tangiers”) and Frozen Food Gift Group, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby agree as follows:







Whereas, concurrently with the execution of the Agreement, Tangiers purchased 9,118,108 restricted shares of the Company’s Common Stock;







Now, therefore, for one dollar in hand and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, agree as follows:







1.  The Company hereby undertakes to in due course create a class of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Preferred”), by appropriate amendment of its Articles of Incorporation.







2.  The Preferred shall be convertible into Common Stock on a 1 for 1 basis, have a liquidation preference of $.0055 per Preferred Share, and shall vote equally with Common shares on a 1 for 1 basis on all matters brought before shareholders, including the election of Directors.







3.  Once said Preferred Class is established, thereafter at any time or from time to time over a five year term beginning on this date, the parties agree that Tangiers at its option shall have the right to exchange all or any part of the Common Shares issued to Tangiers by the Company pursuant to the attached Stock Purchase Agreement, for shares of the aforesaid Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, on a 1 for 1 basis.







4.  All Series A Convertible Preferred Shares issued to Tangiers upon exercise of the rights hereby granted, shall be restricted securities within the meaning of Rule 144 under the Securities Act and the certificate(s) representing such Preferred Shares will be stamped or otherwise imprinted with a legend substantially in the following form or other form as required by law:


 




  





1











  






 


THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED HEREBY HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “ACT”), OR UNDER THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE. THESE SECURITIES ARE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERABILITY AND RESALE AND MAY NOT BE SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED, PLEDGED OR HYPOTHECATED UNLESS AND UNTIL SUCH SECURITIES ARE REGISTERED UNDER SUCH ACT OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL IS OBTAINED TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED.







Wherefore the parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective as of the date set forth above.




 



	FROZEN FOOD GIFT GROUP, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	BY:		 
	 	Jonathan Irwin	 
	 	 	 
	TITLE: Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 
	 	 
	TANGIERS INVESTORS, LP	 
	 	 	 
	BY: 		 
	 	Michael Sobeck	 
	 	 	 
	TITLE:	Managing Member	 





 


 


2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**73 KA 08-02584**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
ALFONSO D. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRIAN SHIFFRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered July 17, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,035,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,847,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,755,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,713,024
<PP&E>                                       2,543,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                 365,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,121,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,156,683
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,706
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,856,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,114,737
<SALES>                                         51,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               439,282
<CGS>                                        1,511,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,511,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,824,783
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             414,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,311,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,311,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,311,448)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.61)


</TABLE>
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: ___2013_______-NM-_____243_____-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fredy Yovani HERNANDEZ-MALDONADO, a.k.a. Fredy Guanny Hernandez, a.k.a. Fredy Y. Hernandez, a.k.a. Fredy Yovani Hernandez, a.k.a. Fredy Yovani Hernandez-Maldonado, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10158

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 18, 2017

Erica MeCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fredy Yovani Hernandez-Maldonado appeals from the district court’s judgment *582and challenges the 25-month sentence imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Maldonado’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Hernandez-Maldonado the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*582ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6862 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6862

To amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities 
             as a covered project, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2023

    Mr. Lamborn (for himself, Mr. Moore of Utah, and Mr. Newhouse) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities 
             as a covered project, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF COVERED PROJECT.

    Section 41001(6)(A) of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A)) is 
amended by inserting ``mineral production,'' before ``or any other 
sector''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FINALIZING, IMPLEMENTING, OR ENFORCING THE 
              PROPOSED RULE RELATED TO THE SCOPE OF MINING UNDER THE 
              FAST ACT.

    The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council may not 
finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule titled ``Revising 
Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are Eligible for Coverage 
Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act'' (88 
Fed. Reg. 65350; September 22, 2023).
                                 <all>
```
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 3, 2010, 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 16, 2010