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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6606 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6606

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2024

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the 
                          statement of policy.

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

SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

    Section 1752(2) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 
4811(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) To protect the trade secrets of the United 
                States, its people, and its industrial base either 
                related to items subject to control by the Secretary 
                pursuant to this part or when the subject of economic 
                espionage as described in section 1831 of title 18, 
                United States Code.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### GLOBAL CHECK SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Flexpay, LLC, Elect-Check, Inc., John Dorsey, Tom McCann, Anthony Maley, Defendants-Appellees

2017-1062

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 6, 2017

Joseph Leo Lanza, Vethan Law Firm, PC, San Antonio, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Scotty Peck Krob, Krob Law Office, LLC, Greenwood Village, CO, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Nathan Krob.

(Chen, Plager, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
PACIFIC COAST APPAREL COMPANY, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                        (14,113)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    350,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               441,349
<PP&E>                                          74,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 552,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          695,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,453,798
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   552,163
<SALES>                                      3,385,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        1,925,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,650,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,836)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (179,306)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (180,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (180,106)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun W. BRIDGES, a.k.a. Number13, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10590

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2017 *

Filed April 11, 2017

Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Shaun W. Bridges appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his *49271-month sentence for money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and obstruction of justice, in violation .of 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bridges’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Bridges has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 .(9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1413

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

Appeal from the United States

v. *

District Court for the

 *

Eastern District of Missouri.

C. L. Tippett, *

 * 

 [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 7, 1997

 Filed: August 25,

1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

C.L. Tippett challenges the 262-month sentence

imposed by the district court following his guilty plea 1

to attempting to possess cocaine with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirm.
-2-

On appeal, Tippett argues that the district court

erred in not assessing an additional 1-level reduction to

his base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
-3-

Manual § 3E1.1(b) (1995) for acceptance of

responsibility; in increasing his base offense level

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (1995)

for being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of

a criminal activity; and in not reducing his offense

level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b)

(1995) for being a minor participant. Because Tippett

did not object to the presentence report or raise the

above arguments at sentencing, we review his contentions

only for plain error resulting in a fundamental

miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Robinson,

20 F.3d 320, 323 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ball,

999 F.2d 339, 340-41 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

Having reviewed the record, we find no such error in the

district court&s adjustments to Perez&s base offense

level.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Career Development (Ks) and Conference support (R13) Review.                    

*Date:*                         March 17, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Songtao Liu, MD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 920, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-3025,                         *songtao.liu@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 17, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03888 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**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**

|  | (i) | The                accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the                three                months ended March 31, 2007 (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. |
|--|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                             |                                                                                    |                             |
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Dated:                May                1, 2007 |                                                                                         | /s/                Michael Baker |
|                                             | Michael                  A. BakerPresident                  and Chief Executive Officer |

----
Amendment Two to Technology License Agreement





					
		 		 	 Exhibit 10.71



 


 *** Text Omitted and Filed Separately 

Confidential Treatment Requested 
 Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) 
 and 240.24b-2 

 


					
	20 April, 2010	  	CONFIDENTIAL	  	LEC-LTR-15398-V1.0

 This amendment
(“Amendment Two”) is effective from the 14 day of July 2010 (“Effective Date”) 
 BETWEEN 

ARM LIMITED whose registered office is situated at 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, England (“ARM”); 

and 
 APPLIED MICRO CIRCUITS
CORPORATION, whose principal place of business is situated at 215 Moffett Park Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 (“AMCC”). 

WHEREAS 
  

	A.	This Amendment Two refers to and amends the terms and conditions of the Technology License Agreement document number LEC-TLA-00606-V6.0 entered into between the
parties on March 31, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”). 

  

	B.	The parties wish to modify the assignment provision of the Agreement. 

 NOW THEREFORE for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

 

	 	1.	All definitions contained in the Agreement shall have the same meanings and apply to this Amendment Two. 


 

	 	2.	Delete Clause 16.3 of the Agreement in its entirety and replace it with the following new Clause 16.3: 


 

	16.3	Neither party shall assign or otherwise transfer this TLA or any of its rights and obligations hereunder whether in whole or in part without the prior written
consent of the other, such consent not to be unreasonably delayed, conditioned, or withheld. Either party shall submit any request for consent to assign in writing and the other party shall after considering such request in good faith provide
consent or refusal within ten (10) working days of receipt of such request. The recipient of a request to assign acknowledges that the existence and content of such a request is highly sensitive information and shall be treated as Confidential
Information and may be disclosed only to those persons who need to know for the purposes of providing consent to it. An assignment shall be deemed to include, without limitation; (i) any transaction or series of transactions whereby
a third party acquires, directly or indirectly, the power to control the management and policies of the party, whether through the acquisition of voting securities, by contract or otherwise; or (ii) the sale of more than fifty percent
(50%) of the party’s assets whether in a single transaction or series of transactions. 

  

	 	3.	Except as specifically modified herein, all the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Amendment Two to be executed by their duly authorized representative: 

 

									
	ARM LIMITED	 		 	APPLIED MICRO CIRCUITS CORPORATION
					
	BY	 	 /s/
	 		 	BY	 	 /s/

					
	NAME	 	 Tudor Brown
	 		 	NAME	 	 [...***...]

					
	TITLE	 	 President
	 		 	TITLE	 	 [...***...]

					
	DATE	 	 20/7/10
	 		 	DATE	 	 07/09/10



  

					
	AP/MH	 	Page 1 of 1	 	ARM /AMCC
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Robert M. Alderman,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund L.P.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 15, 2006

 
|                                            |                   |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| By                                              | /s/ ROBERT M. ALDERMAN |   |
| Robert M. Alderman                              |
| Chief Executive  Officer, President and Manager |
| (Principal Executive  Officer)                  |
|                                                 |                        |  |  |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of the Application of John S. Maxwell for Admission as an Attorney.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed May 21, 1891.)*

Attorneys—Admission op.

The rules of the court of appeals relative to the admission of attorneys are not invalid because they have not been published in the session laws and a copy filed in the office of the clerk of each county as required by Code Civ. Pro., § 57. The requirements of said section are directory-only.

Application for admission as an attorney.

*John S. Maxwell,*for motion.

Learned, P. J.

Mr. Maxwell has been examined at this term and has shown himself to be qualified. The only difficulty is that he had not passed the regents’ examination as prescribed by rules 2 and 4 of the court of appeals respecting admission of attorneys and counsellors.

That court has held the filing of proof of such examination mandatory, and has refused to file such proof *nunc pro tunc. Matter of Moore,*108 N. Y., 280 ; 13 N. Y. State Rep., 621.

We are now asked to admit Mr. Maxwell on the ground that those rules are invalid, because they have not been published in the session laws and a copy has not been filed in the office of the clerk of Montgomery county, as required by § 57.

Section 18 declares that a general rule of the court of appeals does not take effect until it has been published in the state paper for three weeks. But there is no similar provision in § 57. Therefore we think that the requirements of that section are only directory. If they were mandatory, a rule might be adopted, say in July, which could not take effect for nearly a year, since the next ensuing volume of the session laws might not be issued for a year afterwards.

*480The counsel refers us to *Petition of Douglass,*46 N. Y., 42. But in that case the common council was prohibited from passing certain resolutions until after certain publication in newspapers. That was a very different provision from that contained in § 57 of the Code.

We must deny the application.

Landon and Mayham, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**







**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





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 three and
      nine
      months ended September 30, 2007 (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.




Dated:October 29, 2007
            
            /s/ 
Michael
              GlukMichael
                Gluk
              Chief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.