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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6559 

To provide for the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 

to ensure that certain aviation roundtables may appoint technical representatives, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. MULLIN, and Mr. 

SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration to ensure that certain aviation 

roundtables may appoint technical representatives, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All Participating in 

5 Process Reaching Informed Solutions for Everyone Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘APPRISE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6559 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION IMPLEMENTA2 TION PROCESS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the implementa4 tion process for NextGen performance-based navigation 

5 (as described in FAA Order JO7100.41A, or any subse6 quent similar order), the Administrator of the Federal 

7 Aviation Administration shall ensure that any covered 

8 aviation roundtable or community highly impacted by 

9 aviation noise may appoint a technical representative or 

10 consultant to participate as member of the core working 

11 group or the full working group of such process on the 

12 same terms and conditions as a representative of the in13 dustry, an airport, or a participating proponent of a proce14 dure. 

15 (b) COVERED AVIATION ROUNDTABLE DEFINED.— 

16 The term ‘‘covered aviation roundtable’’ means an aviation 

17 roundtable— 

18 (1) that is the actual or de facto proponent of 

19 a proposed new or modified performance-based navi20 gation flight procedure; or 

21 (2) for which the modified procedure path to be 

22 implemented in the process described in subsection 

23 (a) is within 5 miles of the jurisdictional area of the 

24 aviation roundtable. 

25 (c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days 

26 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6559 IH

1 shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and In2 frastructure of the House of Representatives and the Com3 mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 

4 Senate a report on the progress made toward imple5 menting the requirements under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey Ndungi SILA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10957 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 18, 2017

*397James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ezekiel Tyson, Jr., Attorney, Tyson Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s motion for bail pending trial is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### Tobias Zwerdling, Suing on Behalf of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, for Himself and for the Benefit of All Other Stockholders Similarly Situated Who May Come in and Contribute to the Cost of This Action, Appellant, *v.*Quincy Bent and Others and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Defendants, Impleaded with William J. Brown, and Edward H. Schwab and Others, as Executors, etc., of Charles M. Schwab, Deceased, Respondents.

Argued June 17, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*655
      *William 8. Bennet*and *Louis Boehm*for appellant.

*Frederick H. Wood, Hoyt A. Moore*and *George M. Billings*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emmanuel Olubukola ABIONA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41680 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney,' U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Emmanuel Olubukola Abiona, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Emmanuel Olubukola Abiona 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). Abiona has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 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.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JEFFREY AUSTIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2172

[July 22, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 501991CF006388BXXX.

Jeffery Austin, Punta Gorda, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, KLINGENSMITH, and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Lisa SCARCELLA, Appellant, v. MODERN USA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1892

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Record of Conversation:

September 22, 2016

The FAA had a discussion with Eric Corban , of Guided Systems Technologies (GST), for Leading Edge Associates regarding their petition for exemption (FAA

- 2015

- 0346); specifically the 78

- pound Precision Vision 30 (alternately referred to as the GST SiCX

- 25 UAS. Leading Edge described the audio and visual alarms that alert the pilot when a low battery voltage is sensed, which is a sufficient system to safely handle a generator system failure. Leading Edge uses slides to train their pilots on quantifying distances from people, setting the warning syst em, the possibility of drifting, and seeing the “minimum altitude” setting based on local terrain. As a “fault” warning could result from operation in dusty conditions, over water, or in low visibility conditions such as fog or precipitation, the above gro und level (AGL) estimate is now computed via the GPS, the altimeter, and a terrain database. Regarding the operational velocity for a typical flight, Leading Edge’s spraying speed is a function of weight and would use near maximum speed in the clean config uration. Since the SiCX

- 25 has no cover or shell, the long range cruise (LRC) is typically 35 miles per hour (MPH).

Material Owed to the FAA from GST

 Training slides

 Flight speeds

o Maximum

o Cross wind tail rotor authority

o With spray boom
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of AAF-McQuay Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, I, Bruce D. Krueger, Vice President of Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the quarterly reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the quarterly reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Bruce D. Krueger                                   |   | February 7,  2002 |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Bruce D.  Krueger                                      |   |
| Vice  President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (Principal  Finance and Accounting Officer)            |   |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6820 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to remove the exclusion 

of certain small business concerns from the disadvantaged business enterprise program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mr. EVANS, Mr. CARSON, and Mr. 

BISHOP of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to 

the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to 

remove the exclusion of certain small business concerns 

from the disadvantaged business enterprise program, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Con5 tracting Fairness Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6820 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. 

2 Section 11101(e)(2)(A) of the Infrastructure Invest3 ment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58; 135 Stat. 449) 

4 is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(A) ‘SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN’.—The 

6 term ‘small business concern’ means a small 

7 business concern (as the term is used in section 

8 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 632)).’’. 

Æ
#### Victor Manuel MEZA-NOYOLA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-74362

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Matthew E. Roston, Roston Law Group, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner

Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: 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 **

Victor Manuel Meza-Noyola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Meza-Noyola’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than six years after his final order of removal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Meza-Noyola failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline and has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing deadline applies. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (setting forth exceptions to the filing limitations for motions to reopen); *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Meza-Noyola’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider facts or evidence, apply relevant precedent, or sufficiently explain its analysis are not supported by the record. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).

We are not persuaded by Meza-Noyola’s contentions that the BIA was required to consider the immigration judge’s prior credibility determination or the government’s decision not to oppose his motion to reopen. *Cf.*8 C.F.R, § 1003.2(e)(3)(iii) (providing for an exception to the filing deadline where the motion to reopen is “[ajgreed upon by all parties and jointly filed”); *Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir. 1999).

To the extent Meza-Noyola challenges his bond determination, we do not consider this contention. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d) (immigration judge’s consideration of an alien’s application or request regarding *613custody or bond “shall be separate and apart from ... any deportation or removal hearing or proceeding”).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Meza-Noyola’s remaining contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel or hardship.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert D. Marcus, certify
that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Time Warner Cable Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                       
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                |  | 
|Date: |  | April 28, 2016 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. Marcus                                                                  
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Name:  Robert D. Marcus                                                               
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Title:    Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Time Warner Cable Inc.
#### Omar CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PETALUMA; et al., Defendants, and County of Sonoma and Steve Freitas, Sonoma County Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17287

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 19, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed April 26, 2017

Erik G. Babcock, Attorney, Law Office of Erick G. Babcock, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

*482Petra Bruggisser, Sonoma County Counsel’s Office, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: REINHARDT and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Omar Chavez was detained in the Sono-ma County Jail for more than 60 days on a parole hold when, in fact, he was not on parole. He appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking relief against the County of Sonoma and Sheriff Steve Freitas for violating his rights under the Due Process Clause.

The district court dismissed Chavez’s First Amended Complaint, among other reasons, because the complaint did not plausibly allege facts to support liability for the County under *Monell v. Department of Social Serv.,*436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and because Sheriff Freitas was immune from suit in his personal capacity. In his briefs on appeal, Chavez did not contest either the *Monell*ruling or the immunity ruling. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Standford KODUAH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70378

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

*735Standford Koduah, Pro Se

OIL, Sergio Sarkany, Attorney, 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: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *735*See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Standford Koduah, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo due process contentions, *Cruz Rendon,*603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Koduah’s failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution by his cousin in Ghana on account of a protected ground. *See Molina-Morales v. INS,*237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal dispute is not grounds for relief unless connected to a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Koduah’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Koduah’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Ghana. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

We reject Koduah’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000); *Tawadrus v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirements for knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Brian CONNELLY; Keith Merritt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-55431

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted on May 5, 2016

Withdrawn from Submission on February 8, 2017

Filed July 17, 2017

Resubmitted on July 17, 2017 Pasadena, California

George S. Azadian, Special Counsel, Azadian Law Group, PC, Pasadena, CA, John M. Bickford, Alexander R. Wheeler, Attorney, Parris Law Firm, Lancaster, CA, Charles Theodore Mathews, Attorney, *670Charles T. Mathews & Associates, San Marino, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Angela Christine Agrusa, Esquire, Liner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

After the district court denied a motion for class certification, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal the denial of class certification.

The Supreme Court recently held that a voluntary dismissal of this sort does not qualify as a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *Microsoft Corp. v. Baker,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1702, 1715, 198 L.Ed.2d 132 (2017) (“Plaintiffs in putative class actions cannot transform a tentative interlocutory order into a final judgment within the meaning of § 1291 simply by dismissing their claims with prejudice ....”) (internal citations omitted). We DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This case is resubmitted concurrently with the filing of this disposition.

*

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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6741 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6741

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a limited number of 
  cost-plus incentive-fee contracts for the Sentinel Intercontinental 
           Ballistic Missile program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

  Mr. Bacon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a limited number of 
  cost-plus incentive-fee contracts for the Sentinel Intercontinental 
           Ballistic Missile program, 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 ``Sentinel Program Risk Mitigation Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. FORM OF CONTRACTING AUTHORIZED TO MITIGATE RISK TO SENTINEL 
              PROGRAM SCHEDULE AND COST.

    Notwithstanding section 3323 of title 10, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Defense may authorize the use of contracts using cost-plus 
incentive-fee contracting for military construction projects associated 
with launch facilities, launch centers, and related infrastructure of 
the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile weapon system program 
of the Department of Defense for not more than one low-rate initial 
production lot at each of the following locations:
            (1) F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming.
            (2) Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.
            (3) Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota.
                                 <all>
```