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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 684 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit the award of 

Federal funds to institutions of higher education that employ instructors 

funded by the Chinese Communist Party, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2023 

Mr. STEUBE (for himself and Mr. SELF) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 

the award of Federal funds to institutions of higher 

education that employ instructors funded by the Chinese 

Communist Party, 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 ‘‘Protecting Higher 

5 Education from Foreign Threats Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 684 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF INSTRUCTORS 

2 FUNDED BY THE CHINESE COMMUNIST 

3 PARTY. 

4 Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 

6 117 the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 117a. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF INSTRUC8 TORS FUNDED BY THE CHINESE COMMUNIST 

9 PARTY. 

10 ‘‘(a) RESTRICTION ON ELIGIBILITY.—Notwith11 standing any other provision of law, no institution of high12 er education shall be eligible to receive funds or any other 

13 form of financial assistance under any Federal program 

14 for an award year in which the institution employs an 

15 CCP-funded instructor. 

16 ‘‘(b) RESUMPTION OF ELIGIBILITY.—An institution 

17 of higher education that loses eligibility to receive funds 

18 for an award year as described in subsection (a) may re19 gain eligibility to receive such funds in a subsequent award 

20 year by demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Sec21 retary, that the institution no longer employs a CCP-fund22 ed instructor. 

23 ‘‘(c) CCP-FUNDED INSTRUCTOR DEFINED.—In this 

24 section, the term ‘CCP-funded instructor’ means a pro25 fessor, teacher, or any other individual who— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 684 IH

1 ‘‘(1) provides instruction directly to the stu2 dents of an institution of higher education; and 

3 ‘‘(2) received funds, directly or indirectly, from 

4 the Chinese Communist Party while employed by 

5 such institution.’’. 

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 

8 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended April
30, 2021, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
Robert P. Powers, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:



|(1) | The
    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                       
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                             
|(2) | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



|/s/ Robert P. Powers                              | 
|------------------------------------------------- | 
|Robert P. Powers                                  | 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 
|                                                  | 
|Date: January 24, 2022                            | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






The
undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




August 19,
      2008
              By:
              /s/ Dan
      FinchDan
      FinchChief
      Executive Officer
#### Carodix Corporation, Respondent, *v.*Anna Comiskey et al., Defendants, and Alice Seacord, as Executrix and Trustee under the Will of Charles G. Banks, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant.

Argued October 21, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*738
      *Lyle E. Mahan*and *Morgan H. Seacord*for appellant.

*Sidney H. Posner, Reuben v. K. Posner*and *Hyman Satenstein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur r Lehman, Ch. J., Lottghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of CytoGenix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 1O-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Malcolm H. Skolnick, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Malcolm H. Skolnick Malcolm H. Skolnick Chief Executive Officer   May 19, 2008
#### Catherine Y. DE WALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35111

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 25, 2017 *

Filed August 29, 2017

James S. Coon, Esquire, Attorney, Swanson, Thomas, Coon *&*Newton, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, SSA—Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, Janice Elaine Hebert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Catherine Y. De Wall appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that De Wall could perform her past relevant work as a kitchen helper or dishwasher. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we vacate and remand.

The ALJ erred in assigning little weight to the contradicted opinion of examining psychologist Peter LeBray. The ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for partially rejecting Dr. LeBray’s opinion. *See Ghanim v. Colvin,*763 F.3d 1154, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. LeBray’s opinion was incónsistent with the record and Dr. LeBray’s own medical findings was not supported by substantial evidence. *See Garrison v. Colvin,*759 F.3d 995, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n ALJ errs when he rejects a medical opinion or assigns it little weight while doing nothing more than ignoring it, asserting without explanation that another medical opinion is more persuasive, or criticizing it with boilerplate language that fails to offer a substantive basis for his conclusion.”).

Although the ALJ’s reasoning lacks the requisite specificity, it is not clear from the administrative record that the ALJ would be required to award benefits if the-medical evidence regarding LeBray’s impairments were properly considered and evaluated. *See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where there is conflicting evidence, and not all essential factual issues have been resolved, a remand for an award of benefits is inappropriate.”). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings.

*846Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form. Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.

1. Company Name and Address4. EPA ProductRegistration

United States Environmental Protection

Agency Washington, D.C. 20460

DATA CALL-IN RESPONSE

3. Date and Type of DCI 

GENERIC07-Apr-2010ID # GDCI-10080

2. Case # and Name

3028 Bioban P-1487 (*)Chemical # and Name 100801

4-(2-Nitrobutyl)morpholine

5. I wish to cancel this product registration voluntarily

6. Generic Data 7. Product Specific Data

7a. My product is an MUP andI agree to satisfy the MUP requirements on the attached form entitled "Requirements Status and Registrant's Response."

6a. I am claiming a GenericData Exemption because I obtain the active ingredient from the source EPA registration number listed below.

6b. I agree to satisfy Generic Data requirements as indicated on the attached form entitled "Requirements Status and Registrant's Response."

N.A. 

10. Name of Company 11. Phone Numb

9. Date 8. Certification I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law.

Signature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative__________________________________
4-(2-Nitrobutyl)morpholine

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form. Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.

4. Guideline Requirement Number

5. Study Title

1. Company Name and Address

United States Environmental Protection

Agency Washington, D.C. 20460

REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE

3. Date and Type of DC

ID #GENERIC07-Apr-2010

GDCI-10080

2. Case # and Name

3028 Bioban P-1487 (*)

Chemical # and Name 100801

7. Test Substance

6. Use Pattern

P

R

O

T

O

C

O

L

Progress

Reports

1 2 3

870.4300 Combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity X, Z 

12. Name of Company 13. Phone NumbSignature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative__________________________________10. Certification I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law

11. Date
United States Environmental Protection

Agency Washington, D.C. 20460

LIST OF ALL REGISTRANTS SENT THIS DATA CALL-IN NOTICE

Co. Nr. Company Name Agent For Address City & S

Case # and Name: 3028,Bioban P-1487 (*)

464 DOW CHEMICAL CO., THE THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 1500 EAST LAKE COOK ROAD BUFFAL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          27,408
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              91
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                14,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     70,026
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        838,957
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,000,671
<DEPOSITS>                                     877,881
<SHORT-TERM>                                    55,002
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,378
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                         8,371
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,000,671
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,144
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,263
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                37,407
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              17,897
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,609
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,799
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,639
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 213
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 18,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,595
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,595
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,232
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.45
<LOANS-NON>                                     14,838
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,063
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,367
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,667
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,134
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      532
<RECOVERIES>                                       156
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,755
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,755
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         13,755
        

</TABLE>
ex10-08.htm




Exhibit 10.08

















 




  





1











  






 







  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HEATHER J. LIPPINCOTT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 251 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
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



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 months ended September 30, 2004 (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: November 26, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael A. Baker                 
|                         |  | Michael A. Baker                     
|                         |  | President and Chief Executive 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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John L. Higgins, Chief Financial
Officer, Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2003

/s/ John L. Higgins

John L. Higgins Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development
Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16234 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(June 29, 2017)

Laura Thomas Rivero, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Andrea G. Hoffman, Emily M. Sma-chetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Terry Lamar Lindsey, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rodney Graham, Pro Se

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Graham, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, Graham argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because the district court varied downward below the career-offender range, and thus, his sentence was based on § 2D1.1 of the Guidelines rather than the career-offender designation. As a result, Graham asserts, when Amendment 782 lowered the ranges in § 2D1.1, he became entitled to a sentence reduction. Graham also contends *Freeman v. United States,*564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) permits the district court to reduce his sentence. After review,1 we affirm.

As Graham accurately observes, Amendment 782 reduced by two levels the base offense levels that apply to niost drug offenses in § 2D1.1. *See*U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782. According to § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was based upon a Guideline range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered. However, as the district court recognized, Graham’s Guide*602lines range would not have been lowered by Amendment 782 because his sentence was determined based on his career-offender status, which the Amendment did not change. We have precedent directly on point that supports the district court’s conclusion. *United States v. Moore,*541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that where an amendment to the Guidelines reduced the defendant’s base offense level but the defendant’s total offense level was unchanged before and after the amendment as a result of the career-offender Guideline, § 3582(c)(2) relief was unavailable). And contrary to Graham’s suggestion, that precedent remains intact after *Freeman. United States v. Lawson,*686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) *{“Moore*remains binding precedent because it has not been overruled.”). Accordingly, Graham is not entitled to relief pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

1

. We review *de novo*the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2) and for clear error the factual findings underlying those legal conclusions. *United States v. Davis,*587 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009).
## CONTACT REPORT

Date/Time Project Name Project Number

December 1 5 , 20 1 1

12 : 0 0p m Ferroalloys RTR MME

- 4 11

Originator Contact Phone Number

Jonathan Averback Guy VanDoren

, Lan Associates on behalf

of Felman Production, Inc. N/A

General Subject

Today at about 12 noon I received a call from Guy VanDoren of Lan Associates. He called on

behalf of Felman wanting to know the status of the request for an extension of the

comment period for an additional 45 days. I indicated EPA is still considering t he request,

and I will let him know when there is a decision. He indicated the travel plans of some staff

at Felman were pending on the outcome of EPA's decision.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROGER J. MCBRIDE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 283 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.