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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7080 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7080

To reinstate pre-pandemic telework policies of Executive agencies, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

   Mr. Carl introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate pre-pandemic telework policies of Executive agencies, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Earn Your Keep Act''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF PRE-PANDEMIC EXECUTIVE AGENCY TELEWORK 
              POLICIES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the head of each Executive agency shall reinstate the 
telework policies in use by such Executive agency on December 31, 2019.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Beginning on the date that the head of 
an Executive agency reinstates the telework policy under subsection 
(a), such policy shall apply in place of any other provision of a 
teleworking, collective bargaining, or other employment agreement of 
such Executive agency to the extent that such other provision conflicts 
with the policy so reinstated.
    (c) Removal.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
employee of an Executive agency who does not comply with a reinstated 
telework policy under subsection (a) shall be removed from the civil 
service, and the position formerly occupied by such employee shall be 
eliminated.
    (d) GAO Study.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress 
analyzing, with respect to any employee of Executive agencies who were 
teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic--
            (1) the rate of locality pay (if any) paid to such 
        employee; and
            (2) the geographic location of the teleworking work site of 
        the employee.
    (e) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) the term ``locality pay'' means locality pay under 
        section 5304 or 5304a of such title; and
            (3) the term ``telework'' and ``teleworking'' have the 
        meaning given those terms in section 6501 of such title, and 
        includes remote work.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7089 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7089

  To authorize the Diplomatic Security Services of the Department of 
State to investigate allegations of violations of conduct constituting 
  offenses under chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

  Mr. James introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Diplomatic Security Services of the Department of 
State to investigate allegations of violations of conduct constituting 
  offenses under chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Global Anti-Human Trafficking 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDING PROTECTION AND PROSECUTION EFFORTS AT THE UNITED 
              STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

    (a) Investigation Authority.--The Secretary of State is authorized 
to investigate transnational violations of chapter 77 of title 18, 
United States Code, in which part of the offense conduct occurred 
outside the United States or involved 1 or more foreign nationals.
    (b) Authorities.--Section 37(a) of the State Department Basic 
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2709(a)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
        a semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(C) transnational violations of chapter 77 of 
                title 18, United States Code, in which any part of the 
                offense conduct occurred outside the United States or 
                involved one or more foreign nationals; or''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6774

JOHNIE B. ERWIN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FRANK L. PERRY; W. DAVID GUICE; LARRY DUNSTON; BETTY BROWN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- ct

- 03136

- H )

Submitted : November 30, 2017 Decided: February 6, 2018

Before NIEMEYER , THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Johnie B. Erwin , Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not bi nding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Johnie B. Erwin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 cc to 2000cc

- 5 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Erwin v. Perry , No. 5:14

- ct

- 03136

- H ( E.D.N.C. June 8,
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
#### TEXAS AND PACIFIC R’Y CO. VS. WAGNER.

Appeal from Dallas County.

*Fellow Servants.*— A section hand in the employment of a railroad company, and, at the time of an accident, returning from work on a push-car, and an engineer, in charge of a passing freight train, employed by the same company, are fellow-servants.

*Negligence*— Liability *of JR,. 11.*Co.--To make the company liable to such section hand for damages resulting from the negligence of the engineer, it must be shown that the company had not used reasonable care in selecting such engineer, or that, after being informed of his incompetency he was still retained in its service.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.
While EPA expects the yearly emissions in each state, on 

average, to equal the level of the budgets, EPA also estimated 

the air quality impacts of 5, 10, 15, and 20 percent emission 

variability using the air quality assessment tool, which is 

presented in section 4 of the “Power Sector Variability Final 

Rule TSD.” That analysis shows that year-to-year fluctuations 

of up to 20 percent in SO2 emissions from upwind states linked to 

a given downwind receptor do not undermine the ability of the 

Transport Rule programs to resolve nonattainment or maintenance 

concerns at that receptor. The analysis presented in the TSD

focuses on SO2 emissions and was designed to examine the 

sensitivity of downwind air quality to upwind EGU emission 

levels. The share of total SO2 emitted by EGUs is significantly 

larger than the share of total NOX emitted by EGUs. For example, 

in the states for which EPA modeled base case contributions of 

these pollutants, EGUs accounted for 74 percent of total SO2, 14 

percent of total annual NOX, and 15 percent of total ozone-season 

NOX emissions. Therefore, when varying EGU emissions only, 

downwind air quality would be most sensitive to upwind 

variations in SO2, because relative variations in EGU SO2

emissions have a greater impact on total SO2 emissions than the 

same relative variation in EGU NOX emissions would have on total 

NOX emissions affecting downwind air quality. Because the 

Transport Rule only affects upwind emissions from EGU sources, 
downwind air quality would be more sensitive to variability in 

upwind state SO2 emissions under this rule than variability in 

upwind state NOx emissions under this rule (given that the rule 

affects a smaller scope of total NOX emissions compared to the 

scope affected of total SO2 emissions). Thus, EPA chose to 

analyze the “worst-case” potential downwind air quality impacts 

from year-to-year variability above upwind state SO2 budgets, 

and EPA therefore believes that its findings from this analysis 

are valid for ascertaining the potential downwind air quality 

impacts from variation at those levels in both SO2 and NOX under 

the Transport Rule programs.
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1101 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1101

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1101/2001 of 5 June 2001 fixing the reduction percentages to be applied to applications for an allocation by non-traditional operators under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas **

*
Official Journal L 150 , 06/06/2001 P. 0041 - 0041 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1101/2001

of 5 June 2001

fixing the reduction percentages to be applied to applications for an allocation by non-traditional operators under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 216/2001(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community(3), and in particular Article 29(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Under Article 29(3) of Regulation (EC) No 896/2001, in the light of the total quantities available under tariff quotas and using the information received from the Member States the Commission is to determine the quantities for which the allocations for non-traditional operators are granted for the second half of 2001.

(2) According to the information forwarded by the Member States under Article 29(2), the sum of the allocations applied for is 4214601 tonnes for non-traditional operators A/B and 148043 tonnes for non-traditional operators C.

(3) Based on the quantities available under tariff quotas for the second half of 2001 under Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 896/2001, the share of each allocated to non-traditional operators under Article 2 of that Regulation and the volume of applications referred to above, the percentage reduction to be applied to each application for an allocation under tariff quotas A/B and C respectively should be fixed.

(4) This Regulation must enter into force without delay, taking into account the deadlines laid down by Regulation (EC) No 896/2001,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the tariff quotas A/B and C provided for in Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, under Article 29(3) of Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 each application for an allocation submitted by a non-traditional operator for the second half of 2001 shall be subject to the following reduction percentage:

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 June 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 31, 2.2.2001, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.
**6 -**  **Mercapto -**  **1 -**  **Hexanol** CAS Number: 1633
- 78
- 9 Formula: C 6 H 14 OS Molecular Weight: 134.24 H O S H
#### Vernon JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-15717 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 3, 2017)

*606Vanessa Louise Chen, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant

Nicole D. Mariani, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Laura Thomas Rivero, Emily M. Smachet-ti, Michael Eric Thakur, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appel-lee

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Vernon Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate as time-barred. This Court granted Jones a certificate of appealability on whether the district court erred in dismissing Jones’s § 2255 motion as time-barred under § 2255(f)(3) on the ground that *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines.

We review *de novo*the dismissal of a § 2255 motion as time-barred. *Outler v. United States,*485 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 establishes a one year statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 motion, which runs from the latest of four possible triggering dates, including, as relevant here, “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). .

In *Johnson,*the Supreme Court invalidated as unconstitutionally vague the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause. 135 S.Ct. at 2557-58. *Johnson*applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. *See Welch v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1264-65, 1268, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016). But in *Bedeles v. United States,*the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a constitutional vagueness challenge, so the residual clause in the Guidelines remained valid. — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 894-95, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Because *Bedeles*dictates that *Johnson’s*rule does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court did not err.

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6899 

To require the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, 

and Technology submit to Congress a report on light tactical wheeled 

vehicles of the Army, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2023 

Ms. SLOTKIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology submit to Congress a 

report on light tactical wheeled vehicles of the Army, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED VEHI4 CLES OF ARMY. 

5 (a) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

6 of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of 

7 the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, in 

8 coordination with the Commanding General of ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:31 Jan 09, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6899.IH H6899

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6899 IH

1 mander of the Army Futures Command, shall submit to 

2 the congressional defense committees a report on light tac3 tical wheeled vehicles. 

4 (b) MATTERS.—The report under subsection (a) shall 

5 include the following: 

6 (1) An analysis of the requirements of the 

7 Army for light tactical wheeled vehicles, including 

8 any such requirements with future applicability. 

9 (2) A risk assessment regarding the availability 

10 of light tactical wheeled vehicles from entities in the 

11 defense industrial base, including a description of 

12 measures that may be taken to manage and mitigate 

13 such risk. 

14 (3) A detailed description of any plans of the 

15 Army for the development or acquisition of light tac16 tical wheeled vehicles. 

17 (4) An identification of the funding profile for 

18 light tactical wheeled vehicles included in the most 

19 recently submitted future-years defense program 

20 submitted to Congress under section 221 of title 10, 

21 United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### M.M.E., Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72005

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 6, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed August 01, 2017

Jonathan Bressler, WilmerHale, Washington, DC, for Petitioner

OIL, Matthew B. George, 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: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation,

MEMORANDUM **

1. Petitioner testified that a co-defendant placed an order directing cartel members to kill petitioner after learning he had cooperated with the authorities. When co-defendants suspected another co-defendant was cooperating, they ordered cartel members to kill him, and this order reached cartel members in Mexico.

*596In addition to his testimony, petitioner also presented documentary evidence that the cartel, as one of the largest in Mexico, exerts tremendous power over public officials in Mexico, particularly local officials. This documentary evidence, together with petitioner’s testimony, compels the conclusion that “it is more likely than not that [Petitioner] will be tortured if removed to [Mexico],” *Eneh v. Holder,*601 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2010), with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, *see Madrigal v. Holder,*716 F.3d 499, 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Voluminous evidence in the record explains that corruption of public officials in Mexico remains a problem, particularly at the state and local levels of government, with police officers and prison guards frequently working directly on behalf of drug cartels.”),

2. The agency did not consider petitioner’s ability to relocate within Mexico to avoid being tortured. *See Maldonado v. Lynch,*786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (“In deciding whether the applicant has satisfied his or her burden, the IJ must consider all relevant evidence, including but not limited to the possibility of relocation within the country of removal.”). We therefore remand for further proceedings to address that issue.

PETITION GRANTED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Alan NURSEY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Alan Nursey, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10432, No. 16-10466

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 24, 2017)

R. Randolph Neeley, Sandra J. Stewart, Robert Gilmon Anderson, George L. Beck, Jr., DeAnne M, Calho'on, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Richard Franklin Matthews, Jr., The Law Office of Richard F. Matthews, Jr., LLC, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and MORENO,* District Judge.

*

**Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Jeffrey Alan Nursey appeals his conviction for retaliating against a witness who provided to law enforcement truthful information relating to the commission of a federal crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e). He also appeals the district court’s revocation of his probation for a prior conviction due to the commission of the instant retaliation offense.1

Nursey makes three arguments on appeal regarding his retaliation conviction. First, Nursey argues that the statute under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e), is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because the statute fails to notify citizens and law enforcement of what constitutes conduct that “interfere[s] with” the witness’s employment or livelihood or otherwise “harm[s]” the witness. Second, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove either that the witness here, Michael Passinaeu, suffered any harm to his employment, personal life, or otherwise, or that the information Passinaeu provided to law enforcement was truthful. Third, Nursey argues that the district court erred in charging the jury only with the pattern beyond-a-reasonable-doubt instruction without also providing his requested instruction—telling jurors that they cannot convict on mere “speculation” of guilt.2

*984But after a careful consideration of both the record and the parties’ briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error as to any of these issues. Therefore, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We granted Nursey’s motion to consolidate his two appeals, In case number 16-10432, Nursey appeals his § 1513(e) conviction. And in case number 16-10466, Nursey appeals his probation revocation.

2

. Finally, provided we do not reverse Nur-sey’s retaliation conviction, Nursey’s attorney argues that the probation revocation appeal appears to be meritless, citing *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6929 

To appropriate funds for the Affordable Connectivity Program of the Federal 

Communications Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mrs. TORRES of 

California, Mr. LAWLER, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. D’ESPOSITO, Mr. SOTO, 

and Mr. MOLINARO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To appropriate funds for the Affordable Connectivity 

Program of the Federal Communications Commission. 

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 ‘‘Affordable 

5 Connectivity Program Extension Act of 2024’’. 

2 

•HR 6929 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION FOR AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY 

2 PROGRAM. 

3 Section 904(i)(2) of division N of the Consolidated 

4 Appropriations Act, 2021 (47 U.S.C. 1752(i)(2)) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘There is’’ and inserting the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(A) FISCAL YEAR 2021.—There is’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(B) FISCAL YEAR 2024.—There is appro11 priated to the Affordable Connectivity Fund, 

12 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 

13 appropriated, $7,000,000,000 for fiscal year 

14 2024, to remain available until expended.’’. 

Æ